The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 1- Folder 3 of 3Denis Law _ _:Mayo:...r ----~ r· . t, ,-,,I. ... City of 1 2lJfil1l February 5, 2013 Department of Community and Economic Development CE"Chip"Vincent, Administrator Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear ML Lagers: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended January 25, 2013 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination therefore, this decision is final. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and Decision dated January 7, 2013. Also, a Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been scheduled for February 12, 2013, where conditions may be issued. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Recommendation Report to the Hearing Examiner for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Ray Lotto, William O'Neil/ Owner{s) PNW Holdings, LLC / Applicant Parties of Record: Richard Niemi Steve Cuspard Robert Lyon Linda & Jesse Hurtado Timothy S. Bell Sylvia Coppock Donna Hart Terestia Tamayao Dan Russell D. Bruce & Nancy Stanley Laura L. Smith Dan Miles David Hoffman Patrick Creager Katrina Garrison Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE Of A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (ONS-M) ?0.STED TO NOTIFY li'ITER£STED PERSONS OF Ai'/ Ei'/VIRONMEJIITAl ACTION PIIDJECT NAME: PIIDJECT J,IUMBER: LOCATION; Fleldbrook Common< LUA1Z-00l, ECF, PPUD l7D40 1011th Annue SE DESCRIPTION: Tho applicant I, "quu\!11,1 5EPA Env!ronmental Re,lew and • Prollmln•ry Planno!lment <O<ltalnh)i lGl ur>lts In tN! Ro1identi..l 1' !R-141 un~ por not aero ion•. Bonu, d•nslty ha, been roqun1•d 10 pro'1de for the l62 units resultln1 In• ditnslty ol 17.90 units p,or acne. Tho dr,olopmonl w1>1<ld be o,mprbed of 12 ~parate multl.fomlly resldentl•I nructures aod one ro,reatlon bulk/In&, tololln1 U0,934 ,q,,.,e reet. The ,ubJ.« s\te Is located at 17040 108th Avitnue SE and Is <ompri,od .,f lhrn parui. !<Jtall"I 10.77 "'"'· All pan:el5 ••• turtontly u,,.! .. elopod. Tho site would 1H ac«ned al lhr.o locotlon, alon1 SE 172nd Street Ud on• emeriency vehltle only ;oc:ce., offol10Bth AVttnue SE, Th• ,ubl•ct•II• conta!n, 1lx woUond, and;, <ur,entlr fortsted. The awllcant h .. propoHd tc preserve the wetland, and foN1.ted araa alolQI th< """born pe,,tlon ol 1h< ,lte and de,olop tl>e ... 1n11lndor cf tht ,tte by IIUlng three -tl•nd• and protectln1 n .. ~ul\lil trte._ The applicant ,ubmltted 1 wotland rapo,t •nd mltltlllon plan which has undefllone Jw:ind•ry =l&w. Additional s\ud/u lntluije a .torrnwalor roport, traffic otudf, ftot«hnb,I ropoft, and on uborlli roporl. Tha prop<tHd de,elo""'•nl would resu~ In appnwimoboly 17,361 cub/, yard, ol ,ut and 12,(79 <Ublc: yards of fill lo bo balonccd across the ske. FrontaJt lmprow,monb ""' p~Hd olon1108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Strool, IMludlnc 14,526oqua1"11 fo..t of dedfc.ted public ri1ht-<Jf-w•r- THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE jERC) H.>.5 DCTERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON TH< ENVIRONMENT Appuls cf the envlronmanu! dete,mlnatlcn must be filed In writing en er before 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 201J, togeth"' wlth the ,equlred lte with: Hearin& Examiner, City cf Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Jl9ntcn, WA 93057. Appeals to 1he bamlner ""' gavr,rnftd by City cf RMC 4·8·110 and lnfonnatlcn tft&ardln1 the appeal proam may be cb\aln"d from th• Renlon atv aerk's ornc~. (42S) 430-6510. A PUBUC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING I'! THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR Of CITY HALL, 10SS SOUTH GRADY WAY, RU.TON, WASHINGTON, ON HBRUA/1.Y 11, 2013 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, Hff APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING I 1-, I I- L PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION l,~J~jA~f . hereby certify that -<; copies of the above document were posted in _,2___ conspicuous places or nearby the de.scribed property on ·t -~--, -IE(; I Date: //;(.Y/:3 Signed: 7 QAUit~if;[ >;:t' , -' STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _-_-..i.'".L 7 "-'-"·'L'-a,. . .1.Lcs:•'--"'----'\'"-'\""'"'-' 1-'--,\-'-------- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 1 ' ; , ; Notaryt 1 ub(~ in~;d~;~ the State of Washington Notary (Print): H /j b, C ,) My appointment expires: __ _,_;_..,1 , .... , ,.,_,; '"'-' _,_,.l...t -'--'·.]~'.,.(__..-)'"'i~~-...,.1_3,_ ____ _ ._) CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 10th day of January, 2013, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Justin Lagers Owner/Contact Ray Lotto Owner William O'Neil Owner Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): Jh/1 /)1~' .,+""'""~ / V " u ) STATE OF WASHINGTON E' ~· \ -F ) ss : f ,,,.,,,. ' ~~~J COUNTY OF KING ) ;:u -• - • of, tJl \ .. .,~ .a = I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker ~>•,,1~1·29'.':,_7.,.!ff n::-h\\\\"\: ~ - signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act TC()~~-:~...,,a;~ purposes W"""'.,, mentioned in the instrument. '\\\\,,,,,,'- Notary Pblic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ___ .u.....a~.U::Dal..!::,..J4---------------- My appointment expires: Project Name: Fieldbrook Commons Project Number: LUA12·001, ECF, PPUD template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology** Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers* Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETIER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Duwamish Tribal Office * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Steve Roberge Director of Community Development 13020 Newcastle Way Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liaison Manager Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing PARTIES OF RECORD Fieldbrook Commons (Apts) LUA12-001, PPUD, ECF Katrina Garrison 17032 110th Place SE Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) William O'Neil Executor of Viola T. O'Neil Estate 215 N 56th Avenue ste: #36 Yakima, WA 98908 tel: (509) 965-0573 ( owner) Robert B. Lyon 10817 SE 170th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 255-0395 (party of record) Timothy S. Bell 11004 SE 173rd Street Renton, WA 98055-5927 tel: (253) 569-9801 (party of record) Terestia Tamayao 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #2C Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 226-7823 (party of record) D. Bruce & Nancy Stanley 10825 SE 172nd Street ste: #S- B Renton, WA 98055-5969 tel: (425) 277-1415 (party of record) Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street ste: #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 tel: (206) 588-1147 eml: justin.pnwholdings@gmail.com (owner/ contact) Richard Niemi 17022 108th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 255-3054 (party of record) Linda & Jesse Hurtado PO Box 59743 Renton, WA 98058 tel: (425) 228-2481 (party of record) Sylvia Coppock 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #2A Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 235-8076 (party of record) Dan Miles 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #lB Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 228-7164 (party of record) Laura L. Smith 10841 SE 172nd Street ste: #9A Renton, WA 98055 eml: lauraleesmith@comcast.net (party of record) Ray Lotto Trustee of Marjorie L. Lotto 1250 Jones Street ste: #1701 San Francisco, CA 94109 tel: (415) 928-5482 (owner) Steve Cuspard 17515 110th Lane SE Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Patrick Creager 10833 SE 173rd Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Donna Hart 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #2B Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 271-0148 (party of record) Dan Russell 829 S 31st Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 853-6678 (party of record) David Hoffman 10824 SE 170th Street #A201 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER; LOCATION: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD 17040 108th Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 31 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamately 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill to be balanced across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,526 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMIITEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2013, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, {425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING Will BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL Will BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. I _I ' ii I ~ -' '·i,:·,:,_., :l[~--·T'"' I ' ,.,,.,,,,,I ''" I ··I· 'I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. I I Denis Law c· t _ __:M:ayor ------~Jg' f rtu11 January 10, 2013 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL {SEPA} THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Fieldbrook Commons, LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD · Dear Mr. Lagers: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ER() to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report, for a list of the Mitigation Measures. A public hearing has been scheduled by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall on February 12, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. to consider the Preliminary Planned Urban Development. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff recommendation will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2013, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8°110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~-Doi~ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Justin Lagers Page 2 of 2 January 10, 2013 cc: Ray Lotto, William O'Neil/ Owner(s) Party{ies) of Record: Richard Niemi Steve Cuspard Robert Lyon Linda & Jesse Hurtado Patrick Creager Timothy S. Bell Sylvia C_oppock Donna Hart Terestia Tamayao Dan Miles Dan Russell D. Bruce & Nancy Stanley Laura L. Smith David Hoffman Katrina Garrison ERG Determination Ur DNSM 12-001.doc Denis Law Mayor ..• ,,··· ... t,~"~ ~,,,.. Cityof r;. · rf··-r·· r {~JJ 4' J_J January 10, 2013 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98S04-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 7, 2013: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: Fieldbrook Commons PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2013, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~-Doi~ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office US. Army Corp. of Engineers Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF CO,v,MUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD PNW Holdings, LLC Fieldbrook Commons Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the R-14 zone. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 17040 1081h Avenue SE The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. The storm water line shall be re-designed to reduce the number of trees required to be removed for its installation; and, that trees 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193 be retained. Alignment of the new stormwater discharge shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Review Project Manager prior to Final PUD Approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a final Wetland Mitigation Plan compliant with RMC 4-8-120D.23 and recommendation included in the Otak's secondary review memorandums dated February 29, 2012 and June 13, 2012 for final review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PU D approval. 3. The applicant shall provide the City documentation of State and Federal required permits for the filling of the three wetlands prior to approval of the Final PUD. 4. The applicant shall provide a final mitigation planting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 5. All trees identified in the final mitigation planting plan shall be a minimum size of two inches in caliper for deciduous trees or 6 feet in height for coniferous trees. 6. Temporary construction impacts shall not impact significant trees located in existing wetland buffers, including but not limited to the preservation of the following trees, 2086, 2088, 2400, 2399, 2108, 2330, and 2186. 7. Staff recommends that the trail be designed, to the extent feasible, over the top of the stormwater line, to avoid trees, in the outermost extent of the existing buffers on the subject site, and constructed of permeable materials. A final trail plan shall be provided to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to Final PUD approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared for the Field brook Commons project, by Earth Solutions NW LLC, dated October 31, 2011. 9. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, Prepared for Wagner Property, LLC, by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc., dated October 11, 2006. 10. An additional coal mine assessment review shall be completed by a qualified geotechnical professional verifying that the weight of a waste management truck, Fire department ladder truck and other vehicles parking in the area is not likely to result in subsidence at this location and the proposed parking/trash facility would be an appropriate use located within the hazard area. This assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval. ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock {9:00} a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of S 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Wetland Mitigation Report and Maintenance and Monitoring proposal. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with all the code requirements of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protection Easement, providing fencing and signage, and providing the City with a site restoration surety device and, later, a maintenance and monitoring surety device. 6. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 7. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASS/NG -Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. Plan Review -Water: 1. The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location ofthe water for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. 2. Per the city of Renton Fire Marshal the fire flow is 2750 GPM; a minimum of 3 fire hydrants are required. The project will be required to install associated fire hydrants, an approved fire sprinkler system, FDC and backflow device in order to serve this project with adequate fire flow. Any new construction must have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. 3. Per City of Renton code the lateral spacing of fire hydrants shall be predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections. 4. The number and location of new fire hydrants as required by Renton Fire Department shall be determined based on the final site plan and fire flow demand. Plan Review -Sanitary Sewer: The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location of the sanitary sewer for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. Plan Review -Storm water: 1. The project is required to comply with the new City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. A conceptual drainage plan and report stamped by a PE was submitted with the formal application and per the report the project is ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 5 complying with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The report submitted states that the project will adhere to the flow control -forested conditions. 2. The conceptual utility plan submitted is showing a vault and a pond. The storm drainage needs to be consistent with any other wetlands plans in regard to location and number of vaults and ponds. 3. Plans will be reviewed in detail prior to issuance of a construction permit following land use process. 4. The project will be required to pay the Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.405 per square foot of new impervious area. This fee is collected prior to the issuance of the construction permit. Plan Review -Street Improvements: 1. Additional offsite improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting will be required to be installed for this project along the frontage of 108th Ave SE and SE 172nd St. Frontage improvements on 108th Ave SE shall include 8' sidewalks and 8' planter strips per the current code. Frontage improvements on SE 172nd St shall include 32 feet of pavement from the south to the north then an 8' planter strip and (working to the north) a 5' sidewalk. Note: the applicant has requested a modification to the required street improvements. This modification will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for a determination. 2. Additional right-of-way dedication of 15 1/2' on 108th Ave SE will be required. The right of way dedication on SE 172nd St shall be calculated to be measured as necessary to meet the above described road section; that is at the back of the proposed sidewalk. All dedications are required prior to closing out the project. 3. This project needs to extend SE 172nd St to the east property line ofthe parcel being developed. SE 172nd St will be a dedicated public right of way prior to issuance of a construction permit. 4. The cul-de-sac needs to show a 45' pavement section. 5. Traffic Mitigation Fees will apply. These fees are calculated per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. These fees are calculated as $80,797.50 based on the proposal. 6. Street lighting shall be installed per City of Renton standards and specifications. The lighting on SE 172nd St shall be decorative with black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. Plan Review -General: 1. All required utility; drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 5 remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. Fire and Emergency Services: 1. A Fire Impact Fee shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow calculation for the project is 2,750 gpm. Minimum fire hydrant spacing is one hydrant within 150-feet and two within 300-feet of each building. Final fire hydrant requirements are based on fire flow calculations and final access road configuration. A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 3. Approved fire sprinkler 9per NFPA 13) and fire alarm systems are required though out all buildings. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. 4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150-feet of all points on the building. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Required turning radius are 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. City street ordinance requires a full 90-foot cul-de-sac turnaround for streets exceeding 300-feet dead end. Landscape islands are not allowed in cul-de-sacs. City fire code ordinance requires two separate means of access roadways for complexes of three or more buildings. 5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire planning purposes. Property Services: 1. There are minor errors and inconsistencies in the Project Narrative. 2. The PUD plans use a six pointed star but this is not located in the legend. It is likely the area of wetland creation but it isn't plain. The wetland mitigation plan may spell this out but the wetland information contained on the PUD plan sheets is sparse. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 5 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUA12-001, ECF, PPU D PNW HOidings, LLC Fieldbrook Commons PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the R-14 zone. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 17040 1081h Avenue SE City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2013. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: \J ~c/1{/iJ!J fu~ Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department e ry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department January 11, 2013 January 7, 2013 Date Date Mark Peterson, dministrator Fire & Emergency Services C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development I (-ti 13 Date DEPARTMENT OF COM MU ... Y AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DA TE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner/Applicant: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: January 7, 2013 Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner PNW Holdings, LLC., 9725 SE 36 1 h St., Suite 214, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC, 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214, Mercer Island, WA98040 17040-1081h Avenue SE, Renton WA, 98055 The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 31 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamately 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill to be balanced across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,526 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. None 469,158 SF (10.77 acres) Proposed New Bldg. Area {footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): Total Building Area GSF: 71,939 SF 180,934 SF 180,934 SF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). ERC Reportll-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community --anomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Project Location Map ERC Reportll-001.doc Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlZ-001, ECF, PPUD Page 2 of 23 City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 nomic Development PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlZ-001, ECF, PPUD Page 3 of 23 The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet of building area. Each separate multi- family building is labeled A-N (excluding F) each containing a variety of unit types. The smallest building (BLDG. A) would be 10,251 square feet, contain 9 units and would be 27.19 feet high and the largest building (BLDG. J) would be 18,507 square feet, contain 17 units and would be 35.27 feet high. For detailed building unit break down and square footages see Exhibit 3. In addition, the applicant has proposed to provide a 2,400 square foot recreation center for the common use of the future residents of the apartment development. The recreation center would include a fitness center, outdoor BBQ, fire pit, outdoor living room, internal kitchen and gathering hall for meetings, social activities and private party rentals. The subject site is located at 17040108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped with the exception of one small dilapidated shack located in the center of the site. The site is primarily in a forested condition. North of the site is property zoned R-14, R-10 and R-8 comprised primarily of single-family residential development. To the east is property zoned R-14 and R-8 currently undeveloped. To the south is property zoned R-14 developed with a mix of multi- family and single-family development. To the west is property zoned R-14 and CA developed with single- family residential and a day care facility. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including approximately 24,526 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. An internal vehicular street system is proposed to provide vehicular access to each unit. Parking is provided both in garages and as surface parking along the internal circulation system. Pursuant to the City's Critical Areas Maps, wetlands and coal mine hazards have been identified on the subject property. With the application the applicant submitted a Critical Areas report, a Habitat Assessment, and a Geotechnical Report with a Coal Mine Hazard Assessment. Six wetlands have been identified and delineated on the subject site. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 31 existing trees. Due to the proposal to fill three wetlands, the City has required that the provided studies undergo an Independent Secondary Review process which was completed by Otak prior to moving forward with the project's review. The final secondary review report was completed by Otak on June 13, 2012. The proposed development would result in approximately 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill to be balanced across the site. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community & -nomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Environmental Review Committee Report LUAll-001, ECF, PPUD Report of January 7, 2013 Page 4 of 23 II PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental ($EPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a ONS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. 8. Mitigation Measures 1. The storm water line shall be re-designed to reduce the number of trees required to be removed for its installation; and, that trees 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193 be retained. Alignment of the new stormwater discharge shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Review Project Manager prior to Final PUO Approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a final Wetland Mitigation Plan compliant with RMC 4-8-120D.23 and recommendation included in the Otak's secondary review memorandums dated February 29, 2012 and June 13, 2012 for final review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 3. The applicant shall provide the City documentation of State and Federal required permits for the filling of the three wetlands prior to approval of the Final PUD. 4. The applicant shall provide a final mitigation planting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 5. All trees identified in the final mitigation planting plan shall be a minimum size of two inches in caliper for deciduous trees or 6 feet in height for coniferous trees. 6. Temporary construction impacts shall not impact significant trees located in existing wetland buffers, including but not limited to the preservation of the following trees, 2086, 2088, 2400, 2399, 2108, 2330, and 2186. 7. Staff recommends that the trail be designed, to the extent feasible, over the top of the stormwater line, to avoid trees, in the outermost extent ofthe existing buffers on the subject site, and constructed of permeable materials. A final trail plan shall be provided to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to Final PUD approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared for the Field brook Commons project, by Earth Solutions NW LLC, dated October 31, 2011. 9. The-applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, Prepared for Wagner Property, LLC, by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc., dated October 11, 2006. 10. An additional coal mine assessment review shall be completed by a qualified geotechnical professional verifying that the weight of a waste management truck, Fire department ladder truck and other vehicles parking in the area is not likely to result in subsidence at this location and the proposed parking/trash facility would be an appropriate use located within the hazard area. This assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community, FIELDBROOK COMMONS nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WA12-001, ECF, PPUD Report of January 7, 2013 Page 5 of 23 C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26 Neighborhood Map Parcel Identification Map Preliminary Site Plan Civil Plans Cover Sheet Generalized Utilities Plan, 4 sheets, P2 -PS Conceptual Grading Plan, 4 sheets, P6 -P9 Drainage Control Plan, 4 sheets, PlO-P13 Wetland Delineation Map Conceptual Mitigation and Grading Plan Final Mitigation Planting Plan Preliminary Landscape Plan, 5 sheets, L-1-L-5 Preliminary Tree Inventory Plan, 4 sheets, TR-1-TR-4 Public Comments, Katrina Garrison, Sylva Jean Coppock, Donna Hart, Terestia Tamayao, and Dan Miles Department of Ecology Comments Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments DOE Comment Clarification WDFW Wetland Rating Form Drainage Basins Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Critical Areas Report, November 8, 2011 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Habitat Study, December 14, 2011 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Stream Study, December 14, 2011 Otak, Critical Areas Review of Fieldbrook Commons Project, February 29, 2012 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Response to Otak's Critical Areas Review, March 16,2012 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Response to Otak's Critical Areas Review, April 10,2012 Otak, Fieldbrook Commons Second Review, June 13, 2012 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Response to Otak's Critical Areas Review, September 17, 2012 D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The existing site topography generally undulates between a high of about 436 feet to a low of 420 feet mean sea level. The site is primarily forested and contains wetlands throughout. In addition, a medium coal mine hazard has been identified along the southern portion of the "dog leg" lot, identified as parcel A herein. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community, FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUAU-001, ECF, PPUO Page 6 of 23 The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study ("Geo-tech") prepared for the Field brook Commons project by Earth Solutions NW LLC, dated October 31, 2011. However, at the time of preparation of this report the developer had not acquired parcel A, as such parcel A is not addressed in the provided report. The provided Geo-tech evaluated seven test pits located across the site. Based on the test pits in general the site soils consist primarily of firm sandy glacial till deposits. However, two areas of fill were encountered during their fieldwork, one to the extreme east of the site and a second along the western site frontage. Topsoil was encountered at all test pit locations extending to depths of between about four to eight inches. Perched groundwater was observed within the fill zones at several test pit locations during the fieldwork. The report concludes that construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of between one to three feet below existing grades. The report continues to include recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading, in-situ soils, imported soils, structural fill, wetland filling, foundations, seismic design considerations, slab-on- grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, infiltration, excavations and slopes, utility support and trench backfill, and pavement sections. Based on the recommendations included in the provided report, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendations included in the provided Geotechnical Report prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC. Parcel A had a previous development proposed for the development of single-family homes. The applicant for the subject project submitted the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the Wagner Short Plat to address the development of the proposed multi-family units on Parcel A. In addition, the applicant submitted the Coal Mine Hazard Assessment prepared for the same short plat with the application. The two additional reports submitted are as follows; Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 11, 2006 and a Coal Mine Hazard Evaluation prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers, dated September 12, 2007. The Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. states that parcel A is generally level and the estimated elevation change across the site is less than 10 feet. The site explorations conducted by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. indicated the site is comprised of variable materials, consisting of silty sand with varying amounts of gravel, consistent with glacial till, as well as weathered sandstone, siltstone, and coal seams, consistent with the Renton Formation. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. observed light groundwater seepage approximately 11.5 feet below the existing grade. They expect that a perched water condition may develop during the wetter times of the year at, or near the contract between the weathered and unweathered glacial till layers, and within sand interbeds in weathered areas of the Renton Formation. The Cornerstone Geotechnical Report indicated that parcel A has a low potential for liquefaction and amplification of ground motion. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. concludes the site is suitable for development; the underlying medium dense to very dense native soil deposit area is capable of supporting the planned structures and pavements. Staff recommends the project proponent follow the recommendations presented in the geotechnical study regarding site preparation (including vegetation removal and subgrade compacting), structural fill (including density tests, fill materials, and fill placement), cut slope stability (including slope height, incline and erosion protection) foundation support (including placement and dimensions of footings, bearing pressure, lateral resistance and foundation settlement tolerance), slab-on-grade design (including ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUAll-001, £CF, PPUO Report of January 7, 2013 Page 7 of 23 construction support and capillary break layer), Erosion and Sediment Control, Drainage, Utilities, and Pavement installation. The site is underlain with the Upper and Lower Splits of the Springbrook No. 3 Coal Seam. Icicle Creek Engineers conducted a drilling test on August 23, 2007, boring to a depth of about 71.5 feet. The boring results indicated soft drilling resistance; the blow count data and rock samples indicated the boring encountered caved rock from a depth of 23 feet to 67 feet (44-foot thickness). The caved rock consisted of very loose to medium dense coal and sandstone fragments. A 2-foot thick void was encountered at about 45 to 47 feet below ground surface. At a depth of about 67 feet, the drilling resistance increased suggesting intact bedrock to the completion depth of the boring at about 71.5 feet. Groundwater was observed during drilling at a depth of about 18 feet. The report concludes that it is probable that progressive caving, over time, of the two coal seams and bedrock interlayer has occurred causing the unstable and loose caved rock encountered in the test drilling. Icicle Creek Engineers recommend that the area in the south portion of the property, south of the north edge of the Lower Split Coal Seam, maintain the classification as a "Moderate Risk Sinkhole Hazard Area" and would be best suitable for open space and trail use. However, the applicant has proposed to develop the area identified as a Moderate Risk Sinkhole Hazard Area with a trash enclosure and surface parking as well as landscaping. As such staff recommends as a mitigation measure that an additional review be completed by the project applicant verifying that the weight of a waste management truck and other vehicles parking in the area is not likely to result in subsidence at this location and the proposed parking/trash facility would be an appropriate use located within the hazard area. Grading and filling activities are proposed as a part of the site infrastructure improvements including filling of three wetlands and the creation of replacement wetlands. Based on the information provided by the project applicant, preliminary grading estimates show 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill which would be balanced across the site. There are some areas on the site that contain unsuitable materials (topsoil) which would need to be removed. Suitable clean topsoil and mulch from the site would be used in the wetland buffer enhancement and creation areas. The applicant has indicated that select crashed base course materials, trench backfill, gravel backfill as well as asphalt treated base and asphalt top lift would be brought to the site from local sources and unsuitable soils and excess materials would be hauled off-site to approved locations. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared forthe Fieldbrook Commons project, by Earth Solutions NW LLC, dated October 31, 2011. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, Prepared for Wagner Property, LLC, by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc., dated October 11, 2006. 3. An additional coal mine assessment review be completed by a qualified geotechnical professional verifying that the weight of a waste management truck, Fire department ladder truck and other vehicles parking in the area is not likely to result in subsidence at this location and the proposed parking/trash facility would be an appropriate use located within the hazard area. This assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 1nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WA12-001, £CF, PPUD Page 8 of 23 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The subject site contains 6 wetlands and off site several hundred feet is a Class 4 stream. Due to the presence of critical areas the applicant completed a Critical Areas Report and a Supplemental Stream letter, both prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., Dated November 8, 2011 and December 14, 2011 respectively. The stream letter addresses the potential for a stream to be located on or near the site. Based on the site investigation, the letter concludes there are no streams on the site. However, there is a portion of a wetland that extends onto the east side of the site. This wetland forms a portion of the headwaters for Soos Creek. The investigation extended into this wetland a distance of 100 feet east of the eastern site boundary and revealed no stream channel. As such, no impacts are anticipated to the stream due to its location several hundred feet to the east. However, the site does contain 6 wetlands; the provided Critical Areas Report evaluates and delineated each wetland located on the subject site. The applicant has proposed to fill 3 of the 6 wetlands on site; therefore the provided report also includes replacement ratios for the wetlands proposed to be filled and a mitigation and monitoring plan. The following table addresses the identified wetland characteristics in the provided report: ; > : )!) Fieldbtook Colllmons Wetland Characteristi~;: ,:::: ·:<· ... Wetland Size Category Buffer Proposed to be Filled Wetland A 10,300 SF 2 SO-foot No Wetland B 30,736 SF 2 SO-foot No Wetland C 1,149 SF 3 25-foot No Wetland D 7,671 SF 2 SO-foot Yes Wetland E 68 SF 3 25-foot Yes Wetland F 1,591 SF 3 25-foot Yes Prior to moving forward with the Environmental Review on the subject project, the City required the applicant to complete an Independent Secondary Review of the provided Critical Areas Report including the mitigation and monitoring plan for the wetland fill and re-creation. This secondary review was completed by Otak. Once completed, Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. addressed the comments received from Otak in two separate letters; one dated March 16, 2012 (Exhibit 23) the second dated April 10, 2012 (Exhibit 24). The results of the Secondary Review included modifications to the original mitigation and re-creation proposal, including the removal of the stormwater detention pond from the wetland area and the relocation of the re-creation area from the buffer of wetland B to the middle/buffers of Wetland A and C. The updated proposal was reviewed a second time by Otak which resulted in additional comments in a memorandum dated June 13, 2012 (Exhibit 25). A final response was provided from Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated September 17, 2012 (Exhibit 26). The information provided below is based upon the updated mitigation and monitoring plan provided after secondary review had been completed by Otak. ERC Report12-001.doc . City of Renton Department of Community l nomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Wetland Fill and Creation: Environmental Review Committee Report WA12-001, £CF, PPUD Page 9 of 23 If wetland changes are proposed for a non-exempt activity, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order and provide reasons why a less intrusive method of development is not feasible. In determining whether to grant permit approval, the Reviewing Official shall make a determination as to whether the feasibility of less intrusive methods of development have been adequately evaluated and that less intrusive methods of development are not feasible. Sewall Wetland Consulting addressed the following criteria in their April 10, 2012 letter to the City with the following justifications. a. Avoid any disturbances ta the wetland ar buffer; Sewall Wetland Consulting states that due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly out to 1081h Ave SE the developer is unable to avoid direct impact to Wetland F. Due to the requirement to dedicate and construct half street improvements along SE 172"d Street the developer is unable to avoid direct impacts to Wetland E. Wetland D is located generally in the center of the project and the preservation of this wetland with its associated buffer would remove such a large portion of the property as to not be feasible to develop the site in any way. b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; Sewall Wetland Consulting states that the developer previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around Wetland D, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building location to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to construct. The proposal has minimized impacts by avoiding Wetland A, B, and C and their associated buffers. These are the more valuable wetland on the site and preserving these wetlands would be the priority. c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and Sewall Wetland Consulting has indicated that all areas where temporary impacts are proposed would be restored. d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers far those lost The applicant has proposed to complete wetland creation to mitigate for the loss of wetlands by filling. Renton Municipal Code (RMC) permits filling of wetlands if the following is met: 1) A proposed action avoids adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers or takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts; and 2} The proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated wetland area, value, or function in the drainage basin where the wetland is located. RMC establishes the following criteria when completing wetland creation: ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community i FIEWBROOK COMMON5 Report of January 7, 2013 nomic Development ':nvironmental Review Committee Report LUAll-001, ECF, PPUO Page 10 of 23 a. Creation or Restoration Proposa/5: Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands moy propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions. The applicant has proposed to complete wetland creation on the subject site meeting the first priority for creation location criteria established above. b. Compliance with Goals: Applicants proposing to restore or create wetlands shall identify how the restoration or creation plan conforms to the purposes and requirements of this Section and established regional goals of no net loss of wetlands. The following table is included in the Sewall Wetland Consulting March 16, 2012 letter, addressing Functional Comparison of impacted wetland and proposed mitigation based on the WADOE wetland rating system: .. " . Area '}.!;'i!I'if!oocl ••··•· : T 'Species · .. . -,-.... .. catki:orv** Water Hydro logic' {Habitat y :: .... --,-,_·\<_:), (/" I< • • \ >, :< Richness Qua!. . .. Storage Function Function ._ . .., ... _.• ... • • capacity Furicttori . • I · . Wetland D 7,671 SF 3,800 cu. ft 5 species 12pts 8 pts 13pts 3 Wetland E 68 SF 34 cu. ft. 2 species llpts 4pts lOpts 4 Wetland F 1,491 SF 500 cu. ft. 5 species lOpts 8pts llpts 4 Proposed 25,508 SF 7,600 cu. ft. 15 species 24pts 20pts 21pts 2 Functional +16,178 +3,266 cu. +8 +12pts +9pts avg +1 Lift SF ft. species* avg Category *only 7 different species were found in Wetland D, E & F. **The categories utilized in this table are not the City of Renton categorizations but the WADOE categories. As an approximate comparison DOE 3 = City of Renton 2, DOE 4 = City of Renton 3 and DOE 2 = City of Renton high functioning 2 or low functioning 1. The response letter concludes that the newly created wetland would connect to existing Wetland A and C and provide enough lift that the new wetland would now be considered a Category 2 wetland under the WADOE rating system. The report indicates that this would be a substantial lift in function, surface water storage and species richness over the proposed low value WADOE Category 3 and 4 filled wetlands. c. Category: Where feasible, created ar restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 momic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUAll-001, ECF, PPUO Page 11 of 23 As shown above the new wetland would be a WADOE Category 2 wetland, which is higher than the exiting City of Renton Category 2 wetland. A WDFW Western Washington Wetland Rating Form for the created wetland has been provided, qualifying the WADOE Category 2 (Exhibit 17). Pursuant to Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., response memo dated September 17, 2012, some of the functions that would increase would be the split rail fence providing protection to the wetland and buffer area preventing the current type of human intrusion from occurring, trash and debris within the area would be removed, and non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry would be removed and replaced with native species with high values for habitat, thus increasing the specious richness within the plat community. Furthermore, the creation plan includes the placement of pieces of large wood within the wetland and buffer to increase the buffer complexity and to provide habitat features that currently do not exist within the area. e. Acreage Replacement Ratio: The ratios listed below apply ta all Category 1, 2, or 3 wetlands for restoration or creation which is in-kind, on-or off-site, timed prior to alteration, and has a high probability of success. The required ratio must be based on the wetland category and type that require replacement. Ratios are determined by the probability of recreating successfully the wetland and the inability of guarantees of functionality, longevity, and duplication of type and/or functions. RMC RAT/OS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION: Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio Category 1 Forested 6 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered. Emergent 2 times the area altered. Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. The following table is provided in both the Critical Areas Report and the April 10, 2012 response letter from Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. Wetland Size category Wetland D 7,671 SF 2 Wetland E 68 SF 3 ERC Report12-001.doc Vegetation Type Forested Scrub-shrub Ratio 3:1 1.5:1 Required- Wetland -Creation· 23,013 SF 102 SF City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Wetland F 1,595 SF Total 9,334 SF nomic Development 3 Scrub-shrub Environmental Review Committee Report WAlZ-001, ECF, PPUD Page 12 of 23 1.5:1 2,393 SF 25,508 SF As shown above the wetland creation would meet the creation ratios established by RMC and would result in a functional lift to a WADOE Category 2 wetland. There would be no loss of function and value as determined by the provided reports and letters. Despite these conclusions, Otak, the Department of Ecology and the Tribes provided comments expressing concerns about the wetland creation being located in an existing established forested buffer of a Category 2 wetland. In Otak's June 13, 2012 memo they indicated that no assessment of wetland buffer functions and values was provided. In an e-mail comment received from DOE stated that Ecology generally does not support wetland creation within existing forested buffer areas, which the Muckleshoot Tribes concurred with in their e-mail comment (Exhibits 14 and 15). Following receipt of the above comments a follow up e-mail from DOE was received concurring with a conversation summary from Ed Sewall, the applicant's Wetland Biologist, stating that DOE was less concerned about the project once they had a chance to go through the report in more detail. Following this e-mail another e-mail was received from DOE which further explains their position on the proposed mitigation proposal and explains that it's no longer a concern by DOE (Exhibit 16). An analysis of the buffer functions and values was provided in the response letter from Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. dated September 17, 2012. Ed Sewall's analysis concludes that the wetland creation area would require some conversion of forested buffer to wetland, which would shift existing upland forest outside of the existing wetland buffers of Wetland A and C into the buffer as the edge of the buffer area is expanded. In essence, the buffer remains forested except for portions of the buffer that require grading to create the new wetland. The new expanded buffer would be of similar forested character as the existing buffer, and therefore provide similar benefits to the new and existing wetlands that the existing buffer provides today. However, the portions of the buffer that will be graded and be replanted would result in a temporary reduction in buffer functions over a period of ten or more years, the time it will take for the installed tree species to attain a height of approximately twenty feet or more. The provided mitigation planting plan identifies replacement tree plantings. However, these trees are identified to be a 2 gallon size plant. In order for the forested buffer to establish faster and provide the equivalent functions and values as exist under the current condition staff recommends a mitigation measure that all trees identified in the final mitigation planting plan be a minimum size of two inches in caliper for deciduous or 6 feet in height for coniferous trees and that a final planting plan be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. Additionally, due to the need for an updated mitigation and monitoring plan to comply with the recommendations included in the Otak memorandum, new hydrologic data that may result in changes, and the requirement for a final mitigation and monitoring plan, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant provide a final Wetland Mitigation Plan compliant with RMC 4-8-120D.23 and recommendation included in the Otak's secondary review memorandums dated February 29, 2012 and June 13, 2012 for final review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. ERC Reportl2-001.doc City of Renton Deportment of Community FIELDBRDOK CDMMDNS Report of January 7, 2013 nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlZ-001, ECF, PPUD Page 13 of 23 Finally, the provided Critical Areas Report and the Otak memorandum dated February 29, 2012 indicated that all fills of Waters of the United States and Waters of the State, both the Corps of Engineers and Washington Department of Ecology should be contacted regarding permit conditions, compliance, and processing prior to commitment to any fill of wetlands for the subject project. The Otak memorandum recommends that documentation regarding the required permits from State and Federal agencies including Ecology, USACE, and WDFW be provided to the City. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. letter dated March 16, 2011, addressed Otak's comments by stating that when the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, they can then prepare a Final Detailed Plan which would be suitable for submittal for a Nationwide Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to WADOE for 410 Water Quality Certification. Based on the above recommendation/comments staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant provides the City documentation of State and Federal required permits for the fill of the three wetlands prior to approval of the Final PUD. Wetland Buffer Averaging: In addition to filling three wetlands on site, the applicant has proposed buffer averaging along the western edge of Wetland Band Wetland A. The buffer averaging is proposed to provide space for the drive aisle behind proposed buildings Land Kand to provide additional surface parking along this drive aisle. Overall 2,135 square feet of buffer would be averaged and 4,1S3 square feet of buffer addition is proposed along the western edge of the re-created wetland and a small 131 square foot area along Wetland B. Pursuant to RMC buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or neor the wetland and buffer; ond ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and iv. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%} of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25'} wide. Sewall Wetland Consultant's letter dated April 10, 2012 has concluded that the averaging would not impact the functions or character of these wetlands, the area where averaging is proposed has sufficient dense, native vegetation to maintain the function of the wetlands and protect them, and finally the proposed averaged buffer widths would be reduced to 28.5 feet and 34 feet both of which are greater than 50 percent of the standard SO-foot buffer. Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan in relation to the buffer averaging request and believes that the amount of buffer averaging needed for the project could be minimized by relocating a small number of parking stalls. If the southernmost parking stall located in the buffer of Wetland A would be shifted north the amount of buffer averaging and temporary construction impacts would be reduced to Wetland A's buffer. In addition four parking stalls are located in the buffer of Wetland B resulting in the required buffer averaging and related temporary construction impacts. It appears based on the provided site plan that these stalls could be re-located out of the buffer and still be within the vicinity of Building K. Furthermore, ifthese modifications to the site plan were accomplished a minimum of three trees (Trees 2339, 2400, and 2086} could be retained in the existing quality ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBRDDK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12·001, ECF, PPUD Page 14 of 23 buffers of these two wetlands. In order to reduce the impacts on these two wetlands staff recommends that the buffer averaging only be approved for the necessary drive aisles and not for parking stalls. This would reduce the impact on the wetlands, mature trees, and the buffer. Furthermore, due to the high quality buffers located in the area around both Wetland Band A, buffer enhancement would not be required. Staff recommends approval of buffer averaging proposal with the above recommended modifications to the site plan. Wetland Trail; The applicant has proposed to provide a trail through the wetland buffer of Wetland B, and the buffer of the re-created wetland. Overall the trail would impact 1,680 square feet of buffer area and would be 4-feet wide. RMC permits trails and walkways in wetland buffers provided they are located in the outer 25 percent of the buffer and that the trail is constructed of permeable materials. Based on the Otak memorandum dated June 13, 2012 the trail location is not within the outer 25 percent of the buffer, therefore Otak recommends that trail be re-aligned to be located in the outer 25 percent of the wetland buffer area. In the September 17, 2012 Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc., response letter he identifies that in order to create a trail that would allow the public to walk through and view the critical areas on the site the applicant would need to go closer to the critical area than the 25 percent code allowance. The applicant has proposed to place the trail in the outer 25 percent of the buffers for the majority of Wetland B with the exception of a small section near the end of the trail. Furthermore, the applicant has identified that the trail would be placed over the new stormwater line to reduce construction impacts to the overall critical area. Based on the provided site plan, excluding the new created wetland, it appears possible to provide a trail either outside of the buffer area altogether and/or within the outer 25 percent of the buffers of both Wetland B and C with the exception of a small portion located near the end of the trail. Staff recommends that the trail be designed, to the extent feasible, over the top of the storm water line, to avoid trees, and in the outer most extent of the existing buffers on the subject site. Following modification to the trail to meet the above standards, it appears the trail would be in compliance with the Critical Areas exemption criteria for a trail in a wetland buffer. Additionally, no information was provided as to the proposed construction material for the trail, as such the proposed trail would be required to be re-designed to be in compliance RMC standards. Lastly, RMC requires that the buffer area along the trail be enhanced adjacent to the trail, however if enhancement is not feasible do to high quality vegetation, additional buffer area or other mitigation may be required. The applicant has proposed to provide 4,284 square feet of buffer addition for the overall project. After buffer averaging there is an additional 2,149 square feet of buffer addition. If this area is attributed to trail impacts the total area of impact (1,680 SF) would be balanced by the buffer addition proposed. As such, staff recommends approval of the wetland trail, pursuant to re-design and approval of surface materials. Temporary Wetland Impacts: As a part of the project's construction temporary wetland impacts are anticipated. These impacts would result in 3,393 square feet of impacted area. The primary impact is a result from installation of a stromwater outfall. Temporary construction impacts are identified to be restored and re- planted. A mitigation planning plan was provided with the application, which identifies the areas ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 momic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUAll-001, ECF, PPUO Page 15 of 23 of temporary impact to be replanted with buffer enhancement plantings such as vine maple, Douglas Fir, Hazelnut, Indian Plum, etc., all to be 2 gallon size plants. As mentioned above under "Buffer Averaging" staff has recommended a reduced amount of buffer averaging, which should also reduce the amount of temporary construction impacts to the wetland buffers of Wetlands A and B. Furthermore, as shown on the Tree Inventory Plan three trees are proposed to be removed from the areas of temporary impact from these buffers. Tree removal results in a more significant impact to a wetland buffer than typical temporary construction impacts. This is due to the long duration of time needed to establish new trees to mitigate for the temporary impact, specifically when compared to shrubs and ground cover plants. Therefore staff does not support the removal of trees in the buffer of Wetlands A and Band recommends a mitigation measure that temporary construction impacts do not impact significant trees located in existing wetland buffers, including but not limited to the preservation of the following trees, 2086, 2088,2400,2399,2108,2330,and2186. Stormwater Outfall: New surface water discharges to wetlands or buffers surface water management structures is an exempt activity in the critical area; provided, the discharge meets the requirements of the Storm and Surface Water Drainage Regulations (RMC 4-6-030); will not result in significant adverse changes in the water temperature or chemical characteristics of the wetland or stream/lake water sources; and there is no increase in the existing rate of flow unless it can be demonstrated that the change in hydrologic regime would result in equal or improved wetland or stream/lake functions and values. The provided stormwater report has indicated the proposed discarded is consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as such the discharge would be in compliance with the regulations located in RMC 4-6-030. Furthermore, Ed Sewall had indicated in his September 17, 2012 memorandum that the stormwater outfall would release water from the same drainage basin matching closely with existing drainage patterns on the undeveloped site and that no change in hydrology or character of Wetland Bis anticipated as a result of the stormwater outfall. Based on the provided information staff recommends approval of the stormwater outfall provided the temporary construction impacts are mitigated and existing protected trees are avoided to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall provide a final Wetland Mitigation Plan compliant with RMC 4-8-120D.23 and recommendation included in the Otak's secondary review memorandums dated February 29, 2012 and June 13, 2012 for final review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 2. The applicant shall provide the City documentation of State and Federal required permits for the fill of the three wetlands prior to approval of the Final PUD. 3. The applicant shall provide a final mitigation planting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 4. All trees identified in the final mitigation planting plant shall be a minimum size of two inches in caliper for deciduous trees or 6 feet in height for coniferous trees. ERC Reportll-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIHDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 )nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WAll-001, ECF, PPUD Page 16 of 23 5. Temporary construction impacts shall not impact significant trees located in existing wetland buffers, including but not limited to the preservation of the following trees, 2086, 2088, 2400, 2399, 2108, 2330, and 2186. 6. Staff recommends that the trail be designed, to the extent feasible, over the top of the stormwater line, to avoid trees, in the outer most extent of the existing buffers on the subject site, and constructed of permeable materials. A final trail plan shall be provided to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to Final PUD approval. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Critical Areas Regulations b. Storm Water Impacts: The applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., dated November 13, 2012. Based on the provided TIR the site would contain approximately 42.5% impervious services for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated walkways, driveways, parking and drive aisles and would total approximately 200,000 square feet of area. The remainder of the site would consist of residential landscaping and other pervious surfaces. The TIR evaluated the existing site conditions as it relates to stormwater runoff. Based on this evaluation the pre-developed site is contained within two Threshold Discharge Areas (TDAs), TDA West and TDA East (Exhibit 18). TDA West has three Natural Discharge Areas (NDAs), NDA 1, NDA 2 and NDA 3. TDA East has two Natural Discharge Areas, NDA 1 and NDA 2. Runoff is discharged as follows: TDA West: NDA 1: discharges at the site's southwestern property corner and heads south through the conveyance system in 1081h Avenue SE. Eventually crossing 108'h in a westerly direction into a stream through the Springbrook Project. NDA 2: discharges at the Site's southern property line and heads south through the conveyance system in 1091h Place SE. It eventually is collected in the conveyance system within Benson Drive S and converges with the path of NDA 1. NDA 3: sheet flows to the east across the southeastern property corner of parcel A. It sheet flows across adjacent developed properties and into SE 173'd Street before converging with the downstream path of NDA 2. TDA East: NDA 1: sheet flows to the east and exists the site near the northeast corner as sheet flow. The runoff is eventually collected in Soos Creek. NDA 2: sheet flows to the east and exists the site near the southeast property corner of parcel A. It reaches a closed depression and overflows to the east where it converges with the downstream path of NDA 1. Section II of the TIR reviewed the Renton Amendments to the King County Service Waster Design Manual (KCSWDM). Pursuant to the TIR the project is located in a Conservation Flow Control Area and will therefore adhere to Level 2 Flow Control Standards, forested conditions. The applicant has proposed two wet vault facilities located in the western and eastern portions of the site. The project is also located in the Enhanced Water Quality Treatment area. The applicant has proposed to follow each vault by a media filtration system to accommodate the Enhance Water Quality Treatment standards. Additionally, the proposed conveyance system was analyzed using the KCBW ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Deportment of Community FIELDBRODK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WA12-DD1, ECF, PPUD Page 17 of 23 program, and has been shown to be capable of conveying the 100-year peak storm without overtopping any structures or channels. D.R. Strong completed a downstream analysis and identified the downstream area to be located in the Black River Drainage Basin; more specifically the Panther Creek Subbasin. The TIR provided a review of documented drainage complains within one mile of the downstream flow paths. This review documented several complaints within the past ten years. Many of which were found to be water quality audits, which are not pertinent to the subject analysis. However, the TIR's analysis of the remainder of the complaints revealed that no mitigation would be required by the proposed project. As all the complaints were found to be maintenance issues and should be resolved by either City Maintenance (public systems) or the respective property owners (private system). Lastly, the provided TIR states that standard sediment and erosion control methods would be utilized, which would include the use of stabilized construction entrance, perimeter silt fencing, and other necessary measures to minimize soil erosion during construction. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus:N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts: The site is currently forested with the exception of the portion of the site which was historically the location of a Renton fire station. The upland portion of the site is vegetated with a mix of red alder, big leaf maple, bitter cherry and Douglas fir. Understory species include Indian plum, hazelnut, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, sword fern, vine maple and creeping blackberry. The applicant provided a Significant Tree Inspection Report, completed by Greenforest Incorporated, dated September 8, 2011. The arborist visited the site July 11 and 12, 2011 and again September 6, 2011 to perform field inspections and identify which surveyed trees are dead, diseased or dangerous for the purposes of calculating tree retention requirements. Based on the provided Tree Inventory 786 trees are located on the subject site, of which 275 are located in critical areas and buffers and 227 were identified as dead, diseased, or dangerous. This results in the exclusion of 502 trees from retention calculations. As such, 284 trees are utilized to calculate retention requirements of 10 percent of the significant trees located on the site. Ten percent of 284 is 28.4 trees required to be retained. The applicant has indicated on the tree retention worksheet that 31 trees would be retained which would exceed the minimum requirement of 28.4 trees required by code. Additionally, it should be noted that the applicant has requested a modification through their PUD application to remove trees from the wetland buffers, specifically the three wetlands that are proposed to be filled, in addition to trees located in the buffer of wetland A, Band C due to stormwater line construction and wetland creations. Forty four trees are proposed to be removed for wetland creation and four trees are proposed to be removed for the stormwater line construction. As discussed above under subsection "2.a. Wetlands, Streams, and Lakes" the removal of these trees are necessary to create the new higher quality wetland. However, it was further mentioned that the new expanded buffer would be of similar forested character as the existing buffer, and therefore provide similar benefits to the new and existing wetlands that existing buffer provides today. In order for the "new" buffer to maintain these functions and benefits the mature trees need to be retained. The removal of trees for the construction of the ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBRDDK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 momic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Page 18 of 23 stormwater line further degrades the "new" buffer of the created wetland. A few additional trees are identified for removal in the "new" buffer for unknown reasons, these trees included 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193. In order to retain as many of the trees as possible in the "new" buffer staff recommends a mitigation measure that the stormwater line be re-designed to reduce the number of trees required to be removed for its installation and that trees 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193 be retained. It is unclear if these trees were included in the calculations for tree retention based on the provided materials. With the application the applicant provided a Landscape Plan which identifies a significant amount of new landscape proposed at the subject site as a part of the proposed development. The planting plan shows a variety of new trees including deciduous and evergreen trees. The applicant contends that the new trees would provide a healthier stand of trees for years to come while being strategically located to create screening buffers and architectural interest. Public comments were received which identified concerns about tree retention at the subject site. As proposed the retention standards have been met per code and additional trees are proposed to be planted throughout the site. Once the new trees have time to mature the overall site would contain a quality tree canopy for a developed multi-family site. Mitigation Measures: The stormwater line shall be re-designed to reduce the number of trees required to be removed for its installation and that trees 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193 be retained. Alignment of the new stormwater discharge shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Review Project Manager prior to Final PUD Approval. Nexus: SEPA, Critical Areas Regulations 4. Wildlife Impacts: Under current conditions the majority of the subject site is forested. Historically parcel C was the location of a Renton fire station. However the fire station has been removed from the site. With the application the applicant submitted a Habitat Study, prepared by Sewall Wetland consulting Inc., dated December 14, 2011. This study identified that no state or federally listed species were identified or known at use on the site and/or are located on or near the site. Pursuant to the provided report there is no "critical habitat" as defined by Renton Municipal Code located on or near the subject site. The above conclusions may be true, however the site still provides habitat for many non-state or federally listed species. Noted in the projects SEPA check list songbirds, crows, small rodents and raccoons utilize the site. In addition, public comments were revived addressing concerns about the loss of habitat for deer and coyotes in addition to the previously mentioned raccoons. The removal of a large portion of the trees and filling of three wetlands would impacts that habitat for common local wildlife. However, a portion of the site would remain in a vegetative state providing a sanctuary for the animals that reside in the area. As such, it is not anticipated that the subject development would result in an adverse impact to wildlife. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 5. Transportation momic Development Environmentol Review Committee Report WA12-001, ECF, PPUO Page 19 of 23 Impacts: The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,525.51 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. An internal vehicular street system is proposed to provide vehicular access to each unit. Parking is provided both in provided garages and as surface parking along the internal circulation system. With the application the applicant submitted a Limited Scope Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Study), prepared by Northwest Traffic Experts, dated November 14, 2011. The study was originally completed for a 161 unit proposal however the applicant increased the number of units after the study was completed, therefore an additional letter was submitted by Northwest Traffic Experts, dated November 30, 2011 addressing the increase in units from 161 to 163. However, the applicant is proposing to develop 162 units, which is covered in the two documents submitted with the application. The traffic study analyzed the intersections at 108'h Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street and Benson Dr. S and 108'h Way SE. The study used an anticipated horizon year for the subject development of 2013. 10g'h Avenue SE/SE 172nd Street is a stop sign controlled intersection and Benson Dr. S/108'h Way SE is a signalized intersection. The provided study evaluated the new trips attributed to the development as well as conducted a Level of Services (LOS) analysis. Based on the trip generation for a 163 unit apartment development the Traffic Study concludes that 1,084 new average weekday daily trips would be attributed to the project, 83 at AM Peak Hour and 101 at PM Peak Hour. The trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including residents, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. The Traffic Study included an analysis for LOS, which is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of Service are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and Bare high, LOS C and Dare moderate and LOS E and Fare low. The Traffic Study calculated LOS using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity manual 2000. The traffic study concludes the intersections would operate at LOS Cat the 108th Avenue SE/SE 172°d Street intersection and LOS Bat the Benson Dr. S/108'h Way SE intersection, therefore meeting the City of Renton intersection standards of LOS D or better. Overall the provided Traffic Study recommends the applicant construct the frontage improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk along 172nd Street SE to City of Renton Standards and contribute to the Transportation Mitigation fee required by the City to mitigate for traffic related project impacts. As such, staff recommends that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendation included in the Traffic Study. Many public comments were received expressing concerns in regards to traffic impacts related to the development of the subject project. Particular interest was related to the intersection of SE 172nd St. and 108'h Way SE. As mentioned above the provided traffic study has indicated that the post development condition of this intersection would operate at a LOS C which is consistent with City of Renton LOS standards. Concerns also were brought up about the Benson Dr. S/108'h Way SE intersection. As with the previous intersection, the traffic study has concluded that this intersection would provide a LOS B, which is considered to be a high functioning intersection. However, the last intersection that was of concern was Carr Road and SR-167. This intersection ERC Reportl2-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Page 20 of 23 was not addressed in the provided traffic study. However, an expanded traffic study was not required because the City has enough information that an expanded traffic study would not have provided new information to the City. Additionally, it should be noted that the City understands the traffic challenges in this area and has a funded traffic improvement project planned for construction in 2014. Mitigation Measures: No Further Mitigation Required Nexus: N/A 6. Fire & Police Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Mitigation Measures: No Further Mitigation Required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text ofthis report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ./ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2013. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes ore provided os information only, they ore not subject to the oppeo/ process for the lond use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community & c:conomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Environmental Review Committee Report WAlZ-001, ECF, PPUD Page 21 of 23 appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Wetland Mitigation Report and Maintenance and Monitoring proposal. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with all the code requirements of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protection Easement, providing fencing and signage, and providing the City with a site restoration surety device and, later, a maintenance and monitoring surety device. 6. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 7. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING - Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. Plan Review -Water: 1. The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location of the water for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. 2. Per the city of Renton Fire Marshal the fire flow is 2750 GPM; a minimum of 3 fire hydrants are required. The project will be required to install associated fire hydrants, an approved fire sprinkler system, FDC and backflow device in order to serve this project with adequate fire flow. Any new construction must have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. 3. Per City of Renton code the lateral spacing of fire hydrants shall be predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections. 4. The number and location of new fire hydrants as required by Renton Fire Department shall be determined based on the final site plan and fire flow demand. Plan Review -Sanitary Sewer: The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location of the sanitary sewer for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. Plan Review -Stormwater: 1. The project is required to comply with the new City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. A conceptual drainage plan and report stamped by a PE ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community & r::ronomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlZ-001, ECF, PPUD Report of January 7, 2013 Page 22 of 23 was submitted with the formal application and per the report the project is complying with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The report submitted states that the project will adhere to the flow control -forested conditions. 2. The conceptual utility plan submitted is showing a vault and a pond. The storm drainage needs to be consistent with any other wetlands plans in regard to location and number of vaults and ponds. 3. Plans will be reviewed in detail prior to issuance of a construction permit following land use process. 4. The project will be required to pay the Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.405 per square foot of new impervious area. This fee is collected prior to the issuance of the construction permit. Plan Review -Street Improvements: 1. Additional offsite improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting will be required to be installed for this project along the frontage of 108th Ave SE and SE 172nd St. Frontage improvements on 108th Ave SE shall include 8' sidewalks and 8' planter strips per the current code. Frontage improvements on SE 172nd St shall include 32 feet of pavement from the south to the north then an 8' planter strip and (working to the north) a 5' sidewalk. Note: the applicant has requested a modification to the required street improvements. This modification will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for a determination. 2. Additional right-of-way dedication of 15 1/2' on 108th Ave SE will be required. The right of way dedication on SE 172nd St shall be calculated to be measured as necessary to meet the above described road section; that is at the back of the proposed sidewalk. All dedications are required prior to closing out the project. 3. This project needs to extend SE 172nd St to the east property line ofthe parcel being developed. SE 172nd St will be a dedicated public right of way prior to issuance of a construction permit. 4. The cul-de-sac needs to show a 45' pavement section. 5. Traffic Mitigation Fees will apply. These fees are calculated per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. These fees are calculated as $80,797.50 based on the proposal. 6. Street lighting shall be installed per City of Renton standards and specifications. The lighting on SE 172nd St shall be decorative with black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. Plan Review -General: 1. All required utility; drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. Fire and Emergency Services: 1. A Fire Impact Fee shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow calculation for the project is 2,750 gpm. Minimum fire hydrant spacing is one hydrant within 150-feet and two within 300-feet of each building. Final fire hydrant requirements are based on fire flow calculations and final access road configuration. A water ERC Reportl2-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community & c::conomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUO Page 23 of 23 availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 3. Approved fire sprinkler 9per NFPA 13) and fire alarm systems are required though out all buildings. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. 4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within lSO-feet of all points on the building. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Required turning radius are 25- feet inside and 45-feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. City street ordinance requires a full 90-foot cul-de-sac turnaround for streets exceeding 300-feet dead end. Landscape islands are not allowed in cul-de-sacs. City fire code ordinance requires two separate means of access roadways for complexes of three or more buildings. 5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire planning purposes. Property Services: 1. There are minor errors and inconsistencies in the Project Narrative. 2. The PUD plans use a six pointed star but this is not located in the legend. It is likely the area of wetland creation but it isn't plain. The wetland mitigation plan may spell this out but the wetland information contained on the PUD plan sheets is sparse. ERC Report12-001.doc [~ I I_ NEIGHBORHOOD MAP Priva/e Rd ,. ?1;t"'.t1.-~i"1V / ·.\-;..,;., · 1 · .: f · •;:;· ·.!"~t.;:o::, 1[, · ',,',•.:, . •· .. '"("·,~ '-·lii .. ",.l.H; ,,.,, , . l'\."<-•-,, ..... ~ ( -~~ ( ,R:14.\t .• , t. ·t t,rf,~$;.~·' ,,,~/.,J~'~ 'l''l " •'• "'"''' .. ~ ' '" .. .-Ii, ~fl • -'" ~-. -:i,..,, ~-i~-~ . .Jf'!J .• ·.t.D~ ---ri-, \---------1 I /,..,.,,-.,, -I I --ff-v$~]Yt~;j 1 ! . ·1;_...,_.,.~;:::: ..• ,,,,...:l\s. -· I ' (i.j I 1,. I_·,•.:·-~'' \'i',d~I,.; :1 R·B I ~ '•!l~ . .-; !'!',,.,.,...,,. ~ ~ 400.0 R·8 : I I ·>" ~ I __ R-1~4':o'i'.1 CA ·~ .. -,;~ CA 0 ;,:·{] (:{:'.t\ -~ : ·:;')J?;-~·:s:' · -:'\l:'· :·1-~r ·; ~~_t'..;:l,' ,I. _ ..... --~·' . ,s ~ .. ,, •' CA 2.IJQ.00 Cit or Renton. Washlnglan ~ .. · ·· I I ~ 1 · , ,. · . ,.,,1,-. I 1 . l ~ (-.-_'.r>_:'.:~r·:·:~--~~::,·r~~-~I~ -'> :,I , .. ,'i r • .. SE--NJrdSI- ·a -a ~ •4, ·.·~1 ., ~ ~ ~ R-14 400.0 Feel EXHIBIT 1 R-10 SE 1691/,SI ·'·r·:/ }; ' ~ :l 101,. This map 15 a usergenerale~ sl..Ucou1pul!rom an lnlaroo\ m.ippln9 slie and I• lor rere,enc.a only. Dal.a layer, mat appea, oo 111is map may or may not bo DCCIJfale, <:l!rrenL, arolheMlse rnia~le. TI-!IS MAP IS NOTTO BE \JSEO FDR IIIAVIGATION R•,o,,.,.co,.,,or,a11"' RaldorW,11duloc R011denliol4 oulao Radd,nUol B duloc llo,-.ua1 Manuloci·,rod Hornu, RHldontlal1C<!ur,c Ro..,..,,aat<CUl•c R,.,:ton<l>ll,t,,M,Fa,n,ly IIUl<JOOUOIMullt-F.lm'lylrll<l•lk<>li R•,,:t..,W!IMul<I-Fon,11, U,bMCen C•nierv~ag, c,niorOawmown u,oan c,01,r. Nont, t UtbaoC•nlOC,~oMJ Cornrn•rd•I Ol!colHo,.dor,Llal CO!TWliol':lolMori•I Comrnon:1,1ori,co • Comrnord'" N9,g0bo,hoO<I lndu,!r,oi. Llg"I lo<lu,~,al-Motl",n ;.I IMu1!rt°"·Hoo,y Str1.1el Names Rights olWay Strasts Roads Jurisdicllons 0ohvuo oo,Mono, 1 .. aqu.,~ ,~ 0 l'.ir•1Co,.,1y Men:Ofl~•n<l N...,eoilla 111:NTON ~·~Q'1 :-1iUll s .. ,., s""'11, TukNil<i 1: 2,400 : .:~ :@,11" X 17" 01!!5'" EnlerMap Oemlpllon 0 Parcel Identification Map Notes None 203 0 1 : 2,432 0 101 NAD_ 1983_HARN_StatePlane_Wash ington_ No rth_FIP S_ 4 601 203 Feet Cityof&ent0fl 0 Finance & IT Division Legend Jurisdiction Boundaries c-Other [] City or Renton Ad dresses 0 Pa rcels Overlay Distr icts O AutoMattA [] Auto Matt B D Employment Area Vall ey :-~ C ity Center Sign Regulatio n A rea Information Techno logy • GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa .gov 12/26/2012 El Urban Desi gn District D This map 1s a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and 1s tor reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, cu rrent. or otherwise reliable THI S MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION !, ' -) i -) -) 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ! I \ \ J ,,-~- II J ' I ! ) i ' j I • . z • • ~ ! • ' " I i a =-~ .. t (';; 1::':::::!: ~!i ~I ·"'! • i8 i M I- I-I ca 1-1 ::c >< w VM ·ooilG"II 35; amN3flY HUO~ Ol'OH '-'"" ""°° and AHYNIWl131:ld SNOWWO:l )1001:180131~ 0 :::, a.. >- "'0::: ~<( "'Z "'- t!~ z_ ~ .....I z LU ~ 0::: a. a.. r V) Cf) f oZ f-.; 0 :~ E~ ~o +U : ::::s::: "'.O ~o "' 0::: z co 0 .....I LU LL .--r-.._ ' ' ' ' __."r __ '.:... I ----.~:~::: '' '' 111---,' 1'1 _...J+L- ' ' _ __,_ __ Hl-W.(90!:) M 'ONV1SI 0:l:);il3tl 501 3.JJflS ll:nl.!S e!ilt :15; Sl91ii ::n1 'S9NIQ10H MNd ! o! ! ; ~ !! ! ; I . ·i lliill . 1 I u !!!! ' i ! ' ' • : I ' ! ' I ' ' ' ! I ' ' I ' I j ! ' I ! ' ' I II ! ' I ! r------ 1 . r---- l ~ l ' -" 'd ~ • a: "" ''"''"""°l.!O<L'U'LL I H: ,,.,.,.,. '"'""" """'""' '""' i -!ii l!!! ~ ~ ' r! i l ! ; ! ! • h,i,, i;; I f~I ' I Ii; I "! ! ii, ! !i ~ l' p! It F ' ~~ !I i ;: !i!!i s !ilil ~ ~1 . !l!i' ~ i-~ ,i ~' lilt' ;;; ae. '!11 ' '! ,. YM'NQl!,,'311 3S 3(1N3A'I' f.U.IO\ OKlH .1S3M 'NV'ld S3W1Wl 03ZITY'd3H3EI and AHVNtwn3Hd $NOWW0!1 >COOl:180131.d ·11~(90V M '0Nt'1S'IW3:JW31'1 -:or 3.!Jns l33ti.Hi KJ.IK 35 SLK :n, ·s~Nla10H MNd 3S 3nN3,\y H.l.80! ~·----,A "'-"""""'"'" ,,v" """"''' """"'" """''"''" "~'"' - --;--- ¥M'NO.LN3W 3S 311"31\V HJ.IOI otOH 1VW.N3:J 'N'fld S3:UllUD IJ3Zl"Tfll:j~ and AHVHIWn:ilHd SNOWWO::> >IOOH80131::I •11-ws(ooi:) M 'QWJSI lllil::»ilait'I !l<H :l..lJ(JS .133'1ilS I-UK ii$ ~li.11 ::>11 'SONI010H MNd si1<n<1:o.:.c "~"" I'm '"""""-""""'""'"'""'' _..... ... .. 'VM'NOJ.M3l,I 3S 311N::V.'V !-Ut.U Ol1JH lS'V:l 't«1,,I S3W1W'\ 03Zl'M:l3N3SI and AHYNIWl13lfd SNOWWO:l >IOOl:180131.::i "· >lflg(goz) L 'ONY'lSI l:!3:Jl/31'1 901 3.1J!1S 133l:l..LS H..L9£ 3S S1!16 :>TI 'S!>NI010H MNd . !·'·. ! I I i l ·[OJ• i i .. ......,,= ""''"" ,.,,, ~-=-""" """' . -~ .~ " ' ; -------~---7----~~~------~~--------------~ . ·_:,· . ·"......' '). -. .. { . _;-- ' . -,,~-.... 1'·-' :~ : .--;--- ,, ,, f : 1 . . ·I.· .. ·1.' ·, ..• ·1,: ,-, . I I r I I , I ' ..1· : ' I I ·1 . . . . I . . I . I I ... -.I 1:, . 'J·:) I . 1. ::~.· -'j .. -·-·-.---.1 ·,.1 I c, . I. <..:.. I I :; . ---~-:;)":;-~~(~--)=·-,_ < -. -.... 1 .. I ~/ . : . :.~,:>~: .. '.1' ·,/ . : ' . ·I .. : I· , I,. . '. '. ·1.' '·1 .. ·1 .. ' 1.' '-.. .... 'I· . i'· ,' YM'NO.l.N3lil 3S 3f1Nal/,'t' I-U.IO!-OIO.H H.J..nOS 'r«ld S31lJ1UJ1 Q3Zl1W3N3~ and AHYNIWn:llid SNOWW.00 )IOQ~SC131:I 0 :::::> a.. >-:,: 0::: ~<( wz ,,,_ 15~ z_ a'i.....1 zW ~ 0::: o..C.. 'i: "'Cf) iz .. o :~ ~~ ~o ..-o :~ "'.O :o 3' 0::: z co 0 .....I w LL. l 1\--tts(!KJZ) < 'QN't'1Sl\13~31'1 liCll...i...,_~S~3C!Ulk'i ti!, I! I ::>11 'SDNI010H MNd ~ !!fo1 ' •'lf 1 llhlii ' I , ij I ' • i • . !''!'! p1 11 ''1·1 1 lidd! ! I ~ . "" "' . .._,,,, .uo ,rn-u ,..,.,...,..,-nn,.......,.Ll'llr<C ! ' l I I ~ I i,.:. l H 1-Ii Ii ! ' --; 5 ~ ~ m ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' --z-r, • ! I "J I I I I i I. 5~ - 1. I : : ~ • ~ L i YM'HO.Llalil 3S3nN3AYH.1.IO>Cl'OH 1S3M '~ DN~ 1Yn.Li30N00 and AHVNIWl13l:ld SNOWWOO >400l:ISC131.::I wm\goi-) ,1.·a~M33lil31'1j SOI 3.J.,f'ISl.3~S~3S f.<00 011 'S!>NIITTOH MNd "" S.U•3"<l> ,UD ,i•orn ""~"'""""""""'°"''"r.,c' -- ----.• ' ' \0 I-.... £0 .... ::c >< w 'r/M 'ft01N3lol 3S 311N31\'I' Hll'lll Dto.ll "M:I.J.1,8:J 'NVld !)NIOYI,€) ,.,,IU.d3:>NOCl and AHVNIW:113lid SNOWWO:.l )IQO}i80,3J:I 1~(51!'.Jll 0 'IJNVlill:!:J~ SO> 3.1M1S l33l::US HJ.9C 3S Sl!M 011 'S9NI010H MNd 0 ' z I ~ ~ " fffi D ~ < " """""''=,, ...... _.._.......,.CLW"l:I -~: l&,,.. YM'NO.LN3:ol 3S 31lN:ll,'t' H.llOl OtO.H .LSV3 '"""1,,1 ElNIO'l"llEllVfl..Ld'3:JNO:J and AHWNIWl1~d sNonwo::, >1001::1aa131.:1 •a-QK(~) M 'OHV1S1 "113:)"1,13,l'j 00> 3.i.ms ll3WJ.S HlK 3$ SL~ ~11 'S9NI010H MNd ! ~ i 0 ~ ! I e mo < ~ I I i ! ' E • ! f@l '.) ) ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ '·:· -. --z~ !' i .:. ·. te -, .-' ·.· .... I . I -------7~-------~-------------· ----------~ 0 :::> a.. >- ::'1 0::: ": c:i: "'Z "'- t!~ ~-0: __J zW ::1 0::: Q_ a.. iiiu, !z :o ;~ I=~ ~o +() ;:; :::s:::: "'.O :o ·, ;,, 0::: zco 0 __J w u. · .. ' ~i~;. ., . ·'"-·;..._:~ . '· ··~ ' .. ', . -~ ,., ' .. :..,, .. . ·I· : . '; -- ~ ,t. I . . ·I·, .. l · , 1· I I ., I I I 1' ,, .t; ·:11{. •. 1 I :,-,,.. I r_; I - I I -r ....... r .. . t .. ... • .. r, . : ... r ... .. . ,:,,:' .. ,I', ·I -. ·i' '. ~ .... -1: . . '·I, .. ·r: .. ,,~----~ ' : : , ·1 .. ,__ ·-,, . . . "L > . ·.. . ·, ~> : : LJ U,HS 33S ----:-. ----~--.-... -~ ... ~-:. -. :"'.;7'j,lnHOJ.vn- ,4,s,~p~~...,L-d. ~ ' 'i. : ·,. . . . ' . i ¥M'H01N3lil: 3S 3ma11.¥ H.1101. a,,oH HJJ1()s;: 'N'(l,,l ';)t.llO'(!j'!) 1'ifll.,j,i:;)NQ:) and A~IWn3Hd SNOWWOO >IOOHBC'l:ll:I ,,-ns(~) 0 M'01'1't'm}{J::llf3~ W> :uins; .133W.S kl.Qt 3S ;,:1;16 :n, ·s~NIQ10H MNd l ! 0 I I z ~ i! 90 < z ~ ' ~'""''"'" "'"'"""'""""'"~"~'"'' - '' (" "'.cc,• ~· :t: .~ "· .. ...,. I I I ~· QC VM't,IOlNll,I i1530N3AVH.l.llll Ol'Ol.< 1S3M. 'J«1d 10W.lNOCI 3El'l'NIVl:IO OOd AWNIWll~d S:NOWWOO >100l:t8Cl31:1 LL •<l-ffl(lKll,) M 'Oh'VlSI \l:;1::llol:31,j ;01 3.J.JnS .l33W..LS Kilt 3~ !.'196 :'.>TI 'S1:!:>NI010H MNd .. .~-;·',-· " I- I-I i:a 1-1 ::c >< w YM'NO.Lta'ILI 3S 3f\M3A'I' H!IOI OtOH 1W.LN3:) 'N'l""id 10Wl'IOO 30'1'NMICJ and AllVNrwn:1Hd SNOWWO:> >400ll80131=1 1-98 (90Zi [ .ONYl!il ~li3W 501 :ill. ,w 133l:i.LS H!9t3S >l% :JTI 'SE>NIGlOH MNd j I l. ' -- . . • ? .. """""'""'''~''" ''""""""'""""~""*"' -~ VM'NO.l.N3li ,(fl!i (90<:l d I, (f 3S 3nN3AV 1-UiO! C/t'OH 0 .'CJN'1'1Sj1,i3:J~ .LSV3 'Wld lOWNOO 30"/'NIVl:Kl "''""' .1331ilS H.1.M: 3S !WIS i ! ! ' ~i !! !111 ' and AHYNIWn:Rld ' -""""'.""'=. , .. ,·u SNOWWO::> >IOOHB013bl 011 'SONIOlOH MNd i 1111m , -'"""""",...,.,,.""""""" LLff"<L 'J'/ --z-~ ~~ Ii·,·· ! ! ' !'!:-~t"- ··~· .~.~! ,~ .t:.'. 1' ; -, --~------·--' . ---~~--~-~-~-~~~~~~~~~~-~-~~~ \_,. . ·; '·.:.· -· . .::, : '.l . , I . . ·I <I. --.J ,_. ~. ,.· . , . , I . . h'·· r ]., r· 1· I <-i:t' 'l, I . .. I I l : ! i • ~ ' N i h; ;;: ' • ' VM'"10.1N3"1:l 3'S ~N3/\VH1IIO> O,OH H.JJ10S 'N't'ld lO"d.J.NO:I 3~Mi0 and AHVNIWn3l:ld SNOWWO::l >IOO"liS01:il:I 'rH"'fti(IIOI:) M'OMSl}61::lW31'1 SIU '1J.JflS J.33V!S fUK 3S ;i1115 ::l11 '$9NJC10H MNd '1.0''."".W,.?1'"'!' "" """"""'-,,,.,,_,.,, ... ~, - l ' ' ' ) --z--1: ! I ' I I I Note: Base map provided by D.R Strong based upon survey of Sewall Wetland Consulting Wetland Delineation. FILDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS. LLC WETLAND DELINEA T/ON MAP JOB# 11-121 DRAWNBY~ REWSED,., ____ _ DATE: SCALE: 1";::100' DESIGNER.·_ c_T.,cS __ EXHIBIT 8 ,1· .. t·'-·, ,.... -t. f • ~ .. '.· v u1 ··,;e!J:'~{ltt /·), . . ar-)f)1r'1J /1·, .· . ' ' ,l ..,,, VI f(,, ,//iN '?--. , ~~t1?r=-:;., r,0. 27641 Coving@~~~f19.~, f::/ LUJ C~:ds~A ;:x 253-8.52-4732 -·~ I I I O'I I- t-I a:I 1-1 ::c >< w '~1 I I • • • • ! I t' t I • • • • • , I I f I • • • ~ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! l l --I a ! l l -- lj d 11 ~· 11 h u H lt d Ji d Jt h u d !1 I I •t I t u I ! lt u • • • • § • • • • ~ • • • 0 e 8 8 G ® • • 0 8 © 6l ' .. . ' ..... -' .. ,. I t I ! t • • • • • ' ! l l l ---! ti I Jt fl 1f h H li • • • • § 0 @ " 0 • ·/ ! < I ! 'I '·1 b1 -~ -· 1 l I l l l " " " 0 0 a • !, ' l l t ! j ;f I :i I J ~ ~ ~ .... - 'i .~ l l I " ~··~ ·····~ I . t ~ i If r ' ~ i dn . 8 II J!JI ll i l l ~ ,s I ' j ' ! i l ' ilhullu! ' ' ' ! ! •I I I I ,l)LI~ "' 1;s1 I § 1 H I ~! r ~~~ 0 Pl t:; a:i 1-1 ::c >< w m >< :::c 1-1 m 1-1 -t 1-.... '"tJ ' ' cil Mr7-··--!-·" ~~ ' . -I , ~ -3· "-= ., I . -· 1 -r-!!. , _fr·-----1· :, 'i .. i \ ",., ·-·, -·· ==ij··=::::::::=~=---------- . ~ ~,n-+,·1:i·_ ~"'* ·-, --11 "·~'~·'"'" "<; , •"0•c·-. . ~ ,v " r-'!i ., ' --·----1-,.-~ jN -- a. -. U) 0 Q) .. -g ·1111 '"tJ . ,,. -\ 11. o, , .. ·"!r-+ ::I [! w'· , I [I ,; : :e '·c-1~J t ' CD ,,,!, u, liii ,.. --1 'Jn ,.;~:. I ,_·f .. : . .-_ 'f C " <"· : r f j ..!... J ;, i~ ~;.~ " .. , CITY OF RENTON REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN -WEST Fie!dbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW Hold;ngs. lLC 17100 Bloc!: of IO!lhA=,udE. Rrn!oo, Kio~ County. WA ~~~~~~~~~~---- f!i"' •j! id I~! i! i 11 '! 1 _.,...-5 ! :! • l • l i ' I I ,/ j j . Ii .. ~Jpri !I ,i, :j I' r! '"'111 1, rrt1 ,· ii Li I i •' --- ~:!tH :ii§'::,, i :::I ::I rl~1 1 !:;f ~ta:,, • ,:: ~ "I> l!tfii ="II .. :::Ii"" •,n.1 J>=iit• -i: =~.a~~, I ;t, Jo 5,,:, I -"':iil: !!1:r~ =-~~~~! §'.~ fi i""~ i - if ~ .. .. 11 &> · r n Z:• C !j' ;r ~j ~ i<L ; • • i ,, '"'I Cl) --· 3 ::J I» '< r :::s ' ,, ' -.. ,, I» IU'I' ·11-,~-' \ i j ',' a. ,,,.-l<s-;;h ... ··' ,;,:a ' ,,r, ' \~/ , I .,.,., . tn 0 I» "O Cl) "tJ I» ::J I s: a. 0 -,'"'"" ~: ! ~ Q·1 ~} ! ~ii!:; ~;;::: ';. ·i; '= .. T li!I• . ' .r, JN~ 0 <·.,), "'.j ' 1i ,. 0 CITY OF RENTON REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN -MID. Fleldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PN'W Holdln.9. UC 17100 lllock uf 101!.lh A>'OIU< Sf. Renton. XI"& Coun!,'f. I',',\ ' ~' ,~-lf), < '!JJ_- ~ . I .,-,, 0 / iffi ' (y " '' :\ : "t ) -~~J 0 0 0 0 0 ' \ (0) ~/ \ I '. 0 ', ' 0 ; ~-1, ia~lJS aas _____ , _____ _ ' J,_ 3Nil HOl VW mlR\, VM ·,(j~no:) S!JD! "UOl~ll ,IS ;imr.1,,y l/1RO Ill OOILI :m '1i/uJpJOH MNd Ond AleUJW!]JJcJ SUOWWOJ "l(OOJqp]J].::I 1SV3 -NVld 3dVJS0NVI ·11111131!d NOll8ncllSN08 clO:l lON -M31A.3cl NOlN3cl :JO All8 0 0 d) 0 0 0 ",j_ H--l-< ,-, -.:::-·· >:. ·Ur ilr;'-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 -U) cu w I C: cu -O;. (I) C. cu 0 U) "C C: cu _J ~ cu C: ·-E -(I) '-a. ' • ( I ( . ( I ( • ( ( ( ( l I ( • • [ ; • l ( • ( I • l ( L ( ' t ( W,1 'liuna:,'iut)I 'UO)Ll>)l as """'·'V ~190/ JO~'Mllll OOUI OS -NVld 3dVJSONVl 'WI131Tcl , NOll:::>nt:IlSNO:::> t:10:::l lON -M31/\3t:I N01N3t:I :JO All::>' 0 i( !i ' ! ,, i ! 'i i ! i! :pi I ii I j I'! 1i!: ! . I 1 i 11 11,!o!l I! ·, •! !j ''i -! ' !, (,!. ; 0 J ~ t: ! ' -I i -:;;.. .. . ;:-_, _. ; • -~ _.~· ... l ~ ( ( f ( .c • -:s 0 Cl) ( I C: l cu -f a. a, Q. • cu 0 ti) • "'C L C: : cu . ..J l ~ C cu • C: ·-f E ·-• -L a, ( ... a. l ( • ' f "iii -Q) 0 Q) I, g I' Q) i u.. H "E t1l 0 co !2 ~ 0 0 Cf) ~ (0 0 as w ..J ::> C w :c 0 ti) 1-z ::'i a. ~ <( z SE ::; w c:: a. ; I ~ 0 Ja I c, .!!ll (L and AleUJW!IJJd SUOWWOJ )!OOJqppH SllV.130 ~ 3ln03HJS 9NI.LNVld I • ' I 1' . JA a ,1JI I J •11 ' I '1 1~,."11. 'j 'j -I •I liu i, Iii i lj 11 iJ!li h If! i ll•h 11! ,!!!l • ,i! If I ! I l L s a, 0 ) . Z• ·---- \\ \] r- VAt ·l)uoo:> ~UL1 "UOl"'"I! ·35 ~au.•v q1go1 JO ~:>Ojg oow )TI 'ri'u1p10H MN<l Ond ,GeuJWJi~Jd SUOWWOJ )jOOJqpJJ!.:I . M -NVld A}IOJ.N3ANI 33}11. 'Wll3}1d N01l8nH1SN08HO~lON -M31A3H NOlN3H ~O All8 '+·· I C: ctl -a. ~ 0 -C: ~ C: Cl) e I- ~ ctl C: ·-E ·--e a. N ,... I:; ca t,,.I :c >< w "'O al --· 3 :::::s Ill '< -I .., CD CD -:::::s < CD :::::s I l I r' '-.....lL/ ~\\}!)(' vY\\. ;\ \F,-\\i'. · r·~ .'·I' ,,.-,str·,;,,~ -Ill Lil -0 -< "'O i» :::::s I s: -· C. __ \J_ .. ___ 'J__ ' ·. ! -... : "l'''I ; ··••.·· I :c ' \ __ ,·:· <i -- ~-~~ -r_::.:; '<!:: ,,.,11·~ ~ --i ~ ' ;;o ' !,'._, ;.....__. i!r.'. ~ 1"11/\/'l' '.PC!: I ,1 I f\l 1' X .f\_ '\.'!Ot ~'-'HI ',,"™4.'1 u _L_ ' ii CITY OF RENTON REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RELIM. TREE INVENTORY PIAN -Ml Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW HoldlnA5. LlC 17100 Blod of IOSLh A'l'l!tlue5[. R<nlon. J::ln,; Counly. WA ~~~~~~~--'-"---·--- " / I Ill U •, '\ ,---- ' ii ATCHUNE ------~e SF1e_et TR-3 \ ' ' ' . " VM '-<iu~~ !i'u1~ 'UOl\~ "lS .ouJ.IYql80ijO l"'llr OOILI :m •flu1p10H MNd Ond !CJEU!W[ldld SUOWWO) ~OOJqp[;;i\:I SV:I-NVld A'/:IO.lN3ANI 33'/:l.l "Wl13'1:1 ~~=====±c====================~''Lld:b!cddJ\Jedb!JJh![{,..__ cc- ~:., ---''--'al ................ . / ·,. ' , -- • ( ( [ ( L I ( • • [ [ • ( I • l 1;j [ ltl L We I C' ltl t a: ( ~ 0 -C ~ C -Cl) e I- ~ ltl C E -e C. YM'kmt0S\JDf'001""l£'J)"'1~AV4lll_. 09011!001.ll ::m ·du1p1or1 MNd -- ' .. i ;, ; ""·I ' ' l . "' . ~ I-T I -cc !?)~'- ' ! --.... ' .s:: -:l 0 UJ ' ' C: ctl ~ a: I• \ ~ /0 -; C: / Cl) """"''"'''--./ > C: -Cl) ~ ,I- ~ ctl C: ·-E ·--~ D. Laureen M. Nicolay From: Sent: To: Cc: katrinag26@hotmail.com Friday, July 06, 2012 11 :59 AM Laureen M. Nicolay katrinag26@hotmail.com Subject: Zoning Land Use Information Request Public Works/Utility Inquiry Data from form "Zoning and Land Use Information Request" was received on 7/6/2012 11:59:17 AM. Zoning and Land Use Information Request i ~a, I ; Sender's Katrina Garrison !Name I . I : 1 sender's 1 Address 1 . 17032 110th Place SE Value I Sender's 1,· !Address 2 • M .... Sender's City, State, · Renton, WA 98055 Zip t:; a:I 1-4 Sender's 1· 2062261993 Phone Sender's Email Question katrinag26@hotmail.com .To whom it may concern; My address is 17032 110th Place SE Renton, WA 98055 (Parcel# 863710-0400). PNW Hryldings, LLC has filed an application with the City of Renton to build three story townhouses on the property directly behind my house (Parcel#292305~9022). I have several concerns with this that the City of Renton needs to address: There is more than a foot of standing water on the property. My yard is soggy in the winter and takes a month or more of nice weather to dry, I am concerned with flooding in tte area and my house if the city allows this project. I was informed by Vanessa Dolbee that there are several category II wetlands on the property that will be filled as part of this project. WAC 173-183-710 Category II wetlands. The following types of .wetlands are classed as category II wetlands; Documented habitat recognized by federal and., state agencies for sensitive plant, animal, or fish species; or Documented priority habitats and species recognized by state agencies; or Wetlands with significant functions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration; or Wetlands with significant habitat value; or Documented wetlands of local significance. Think flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife. Every natural wetland, from a high mountain bog to a scummy lowland pond, serves as a flood control device and water filter. These places and the plants that evolved there can reduce runoff at the rate of about a million gallons per year. Multiply that by the magnitude of wetland loss that 1 s been tolerated in the Puget Sound region in the past 100 years, and you begin to see why floods have become worse, Puget Sound water quality 1 ::c >< w I i I ! I I I I I I ! Field i Sender's IName ' Value has degraded, and salmon runs have belly-flopped. • What is going to happen to the water?• Category 2 wetlands cannot be replicated, they will be gone forever. Does the city of Renton support this? • Previously this property was under the jurisdiction of King County there signs all along the fences around the property that state "protect our wetlands." Does the city of Renton take the stance that it is ok to demolish and build on our sacred wetlands?• There is also wildlife on that property. What will happen to these animals? Do you have a plan to place them somewhere safe? Or do you just let them get hit by cars?• Traffic-I called the City of Renton and learned that there was a traffic study waiver provided for this project. On the mayors page he states that one of his major concerns is improvi~g traffic in Renton. Why was a traffic study waiver provided? (I called and spoke to Arneta Henniger on 11/2/2011 since she is the person who waived the traffic study, she could not tell me why it was waived and sounded very frustrated with me, I asked her if I was frustrating her she responded that it wasn't me it was her workload. As a homeowner, citizen and taxpayer I am concerned that Renton City employees are not doing their jobs properly because they are overworked. Since, I called they decided to they would require a "limited traffic study" she didn't have the time to tell me what that is, please tell me what the difference between a limited and full traffic study are? o Building 100, 3 bedroom units on that property is going to increase traffic significantly. I have sat through 4 rounds of stoplights on the corner of 108th and Benson Dr on more than one occasion for up to 12 minutes (I timed it), just to go to Fred Meyer to get dinner. What does the City of Renton plan to do with the traffic on that corner as well as Benson Dr. Sand SE? o Driving west on Carr road to get on 167 will back up to 106th Ave at times, not due to accidents but the number of cars on the road. Another apartment complex was just built on the corner of Carr road and 106th. Was there a traffic study completed? It can take up to 30 minutes to get down that hill, what does the city plan on doing about that? Just continue to build more apartments?• Personally, this is very frustrating as this will further decrease my property value, I have already lost 65K in value and I am scared to see what this will do. I will lose privacy {one of the reasons I bought the house) I will now have three story apartment buildings looking directly into my house. Below is the Mayors statement on the State of the City for 2011, I hate to say you are not living up to your goals and visions. We must continue to work together to make sure that our city is uniquely prepared and effectively protected against fires, floods and any disaster. With the new Census numbers putting us at over 90,000 residents, Renton is now the 4th largest city in King County and the 9th largest in the state. Our task ahead is very exciting -but also challenging. The buzz word in government these days is "green!" And it should be. We are committed to moving ·forward with a 1'green 11 agenda where we lead by example and promote a healthy environment. We have made significant progress. Trees provide numerous environmental, social and economic benefits for people, yet urban areas present challenging environments for trees to grow and survive. We completed the urban forestry plan for Renton to ensure that we manage and protect the tree canopy in our city. For the second year in a row, we received the Tree- City USA designation and also received our first Tree City USA Growth award. I know this is a long letter but please take the time to read. Thank you, Katrina Garrison Field Brook Apartments Email "Zoning Land Use Information Request" originally sent to lnicolay@rentonwa.gov from katrinag26@hotmail.com on 7/6/2012 11 :59: 17 AM. The following were also sent a copy: katrinag26@hotmail.com. 2 Sylva Jean Coppock 10813 SE 172°d Street, Unit 2A Renton, WA 98055-5966 Phone: 425-235-8076 -Email: SylvaCop@comcast.net Sept=ber 5, 2011 City of Renton Community & Economic Development Attention: City Clerk · Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Regarding: Surplus Property Fire Station 13 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED JUL 06 2012 BUILDING DIVISION I have some concerns about the disposition of the property referenced, and the forested area adjacent on the east and south sides of that parcel of land. I have lived at Kelsey Court Condominiums on SE 172nd Street for nearly 20 years and have seen a great deal of wildlife in this area, particularly coming and going from the wooded parcel of land adjacent to where the fire station once stood. At various times I have seen as many as three raccoons at a time frequenting the .area and have spotted a coyote from time to time. A doe, with her fawns frequents the woods each spring, and I've watched deer standing on the shoulder of the old Benson Road, waiting for traffic to clear so they can safely cross the road. There are also large communities ofrabbits around the property and eagles often rest in the trees. I would be opposed to someone buying that small parcel of property, and then perhaps expanding their holdings to the adjacent wooded area, building a new housing development and, as a result, driving the wildlife away. I will plan to attend the hearing on September 12, 2011 to listen to the public comments from others in this area. ~w~ Sylva Coppock Sylva Jean Coppock 10813 SE 172"d Street, Unit 2A Renton, WA 98055-5966 Phone: 425-235-8076 -Email: SylvaCop@comcast.net July 7, 2012 City of Renton Departtnent of Community & Economic Development Attention: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, CED-Planning Division Renton Gty Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Regarding: Construction of 162 Residential Multi-Family Units at 1704D 108ili Avenue SE. A ECITYOFRENTON CEIVED JUL 06 2012 BUILDING DIVISION I have concerns about the decision to build 162 apattments to be known as Fieldbrook Commons on the 10.77 acres of land at the above referenced address. I have lived at Kelsey Court Condominiums just south of SE 172°d Street for nearly 20 years and have seen a great deal of wildlife in this area, particularly coming and going from the wooded parcel of land north of 172nd and east of 108th. Last week as I exited the driveway from the complex two beautiful deer were grazing in the grass alongside the east/west road_ A doe, with her fawns frequents the woods each spring, I see them often in the spring and summer. And I've watched deer standing on the shoulder of the highway, waiting for traffic to clear so they can safely cross the 108th. At various times I have seen as many as three raccoons at a time frequenting the area and have spotted a coyote from time to time. There are also large communities of rabbits around the property and eagles often rest in the trees. Development has crowded out the wildlife to the point where there is no place for them to go and they are in constant danger of being struck by vehicular traffic that speeds much too fast up and down the old Benson Road The small island of trees on this property is an aesthetic not to be dismissed as unimportant. There is so little green space left in our crowded cities. Please take into consideration what we are all losing by contioning to build these mega-developments, which are so densely populating the landscape. Another aspect to consider is the traffic nightmare that will result from three more access locations along SE 172°d Street, which already carries a constant stream of traffic from the 36 units of Kelsey Court Condominiums and from ten single family residential homes in a cul de sac immediately east of the condo-complex. Since there is no traffic light at the intersection of 172°d and 108"' there is typically a wait for cars to exit or enter 108ili Avenue SE, especially du.ring the morning and evening commute times. There have already been several accidents at this llltersection over the years. be notified of any community meetings or public hearings scheduled in regard to the project. J ~ a Cop 10813 SE ;;t:Cet, Unit 2A, Renton, WA 98055 (425-235-8076) ~&/ 71.a11~ad" Donna Hart, 10813 SE 1 2nd Street, Unit 2B, Renton, WA 98055 (425-271-0148) Terestia Tarnayao, 10813 S 172nd Street, Unit 2C, Renton, WA 98055 (425-226-7823) .ab~ )..k-- Dan Miles, 10809 SE 172nd Street, Unit lB, Renton, WA 980555 (425-228-7164) Enclosure: Letter submitted on September 5, 2011, regarding Surplus Property, former Fire Station 13 site. Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) <patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov> Monday, July 09, 2012 1:10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Vanessa Dolbee, With regards to the application of Fieldbrook Commons, I am submitting these brief comments for the record for SEPA review. Per the project description the applicant is proposing to fill three on-site wetlands. Ecology asks that the City of Renton condition approval of any site work with the following stipulation: The applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal authorizations for wetland impacts prior to beginning any ground disturbing activities or timber harvest. Furthermore, please note that Ecology generally does not support wetland creation within existing forested buffer areas. The buffer area proposed for wetland creation has been described as being partially degraded but Ecology notes that the city's buffers are smaller than Ecology's recommended standards for Category II wetlands and that taken together in the whole, this project is proposing significant impacts to buffer functions in areas that that lie both inside and outside of the city's standard buffers including buffer reductions adjacent to the westernmost portions of Wetlands A & B adjacent to wetland flags A3 and B4. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project of Field brook Commons. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner Wetlands Specialist Department of Ecology/NWRO 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 425-649-444 7 patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Vanessa, Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Monday, July 09, 2012 4:58 PM Vanessa Dolbee RE: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments Follow up Completed Thank you for sending us WDOE's SEPA comments for the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project referenced above. We agree with WDOE's comments and recommend that the applicant provide an additional analysis in-depth regarding the existing wetland conditions, the functions of the existing forested buffer and demonstration of no net loss given potential temporal impacts to the forested wetland buffer. As a result of this additional, in-depth analysis, the project may need additional mitigation to ensure that this project complies with local, state, and federal regulation regarding impacts and no net loss. Best regards, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015172ndAve SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 4:52 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: FW: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments Karen, See DOE comments below on the subject project. 'Vanessa (J)o(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) [mailto:patrick.mcgraner@ecy,wa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 1:10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments 1 Ln .... I- I-I a:I 1-1 ::c >< w Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) <patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov> Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:49 AM To: Ed Sewall Cc: Subject: justin@americanclassichomes.com; Vanessa Dolbee RE: Fieldbrook Renton Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Thank you Ed, This is a good summary of our conversation. I would only add that I also wanted to implicitly remind the city that current buffer standards do not meet BAS and that when the time comes to update their CAO, this will need to b, addressed. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner, Wetlands Specialist, Department of Ecology/SEA/NWRO From: Ed Sewall [mailto:esewall@sewallwc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:42 AM To: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) Cc: justin@americanclassichomes.com; 'Vanessa Dolbee' Subject: Fieldbrook Renton Patrick, back on the 17'" you and I discussed the Field brook project in the City of Renton on the phone. I passed 1, ,a, information onto the city through an email, but they would like something in writing from you confirming our conversation. I think just a reply to this email would suffice. I informed them that during our conversation you mentioned; 1. You were less concerned about the project once you got a chance to go through the report in more detail. We discussed how the ratings of the City of Renton don't match up with the WADOE rating system. The Category 2 wetlands under the City rating system equate in this instance to Category 3 wetlands under the WADOE system. 2. You were just responding to a citizen request to review the project, and; 3. That since there was <114 acre of fill, under a US Army Corps Nationwide 29 permit, which would be the permit we would receive fro a project like this, WADOE would not be required to issue 401 cert., nor would WADOE be reviewing the mitigation plan under this scenario. Thanks! Ed Sewall Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (253) 859-0515 1 Dear Vanessa Dolbee, With regards to the application of Field brook Commons, I am submitting these brief comments for the record for SEPA review. Per the project description the applicant is proposing to fill three on-site wetlands, Ecology asks that the City of Renton condition approval of any site work with the following stipulation: The applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal authorizations for wetland impacts prior to beginning any ground disturbing activities or timber harvest. Furthermore, please note that Ecology generally does not support wetland creation within existing forested buffer areas. The buffer area proposed for wetland creation has been described as being partially degraded but Ecology notes that the city's buffers are smaller than Ecology's recommended standards for Category II wetlands and that taken together in the whole, this project is proposing significant impacts to buffer functions in areas that that lie both inside and outside of the city's standard buffers including buffer reductions adjacent to the westernmost portions of Wetlands A & B adjacent to wetland flags A3 and B4. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project of Field brook Commons. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner Wetlands Specialist Department of Ecology/NWRO 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 425-649-444 7 patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) <patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov> Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:22 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Field brook Commons LUA 12-001 Hi Vanessa, I am home sick today and don't have the specifics on this project with me but when I spoke to Ed Sewell some months ago about my concerns, he described the existing conditions to me with regards to the past disturbances from mining and other activities. He also described to me in detail the existing plant community such that I was no longer concerned about the proposed location of the mitigation area within a forested area. Additionally, this application would likely meet the conditions for a Federal Nationwide Permit and would not require Ecology approval. I hope this is sufficient. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner/Wetlands Specialist/WSDOE From: Vanessa Dolbee (VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:15 AM To: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001 Patrick, Thank you for your voice mail regarding the wetland creation proposed in the forested buffer included in the subject project proposal. Would it be possible for you to provide me with an e-mail documenting DO E's new position on the proposal. As the last e-mail received from DOE did not support the proposal and Ed Sewell's e-mail stated the DOE was "less concerned". Which could mean a number of things. Thank you for the follow up clarifying DO E's position on the subject projects mitigation proposal. o/anessa (J)o(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 1 ~·) ,..;_ i '~-.t ]. ~ - ' ·}. (; '.;l ·~ : • ~ • • E "' • w '.'1 z £: ::.- ~: .._, I ; :: 3 I -I ' ::., _1 i r J :"i:. t ~ ·= i ·,i i i ' i5 ,..,. ...,__ ___ ~ ~--,---------··--·-----.---------~ ~ -~ .; :.: 1i ::-.", ~ ~ ~ 3 :I 2 ~-~ ~ -~ """=; ~.-,,...-c:, ;" .,:~~; it~ ~l ~lt·· ; 1 0 ~ ~ §=.::.~ { ;;; _: . .,, - L'.! i~ J~ i .;_;-~ ,;~ 1~ C· ~~ ~e -~~ l---:::: ,;:. ::: ~ ~ ~ ~ l:"·5 Ei' ~ ~=-~]! !:_ -~, 1: ... ] -" -~::· .; gi ~-ftg 3 = ,,,,,, ________ i -,-,~~--__ , __ _ t; f, ~ [.~ ·- .~ " ;_ '= ~]~~ 2 r:."' ./;. ...'.!..,. :t]~ f ~al ·~13t'' Le,gi"\2~J1"':r "ii°"''t"~5{1 ""}~"'"2 ~"'I ~ .£ " • ~ ~ .a ·" ,, Ii .- ' i t I l ;1 ·---ti i r ,. O t_f :::; .. ~ s g .: • ::. <:' ;:;} 5} ~ £i.5 ii !l!~ ;j~ ·: ~,- • 0 _:._~ ~i -"·8 .~ ;:: ~ ,, ... ~fi !i 5~ Q 2 ~ f~ :&~ ~-· ~ 15 ~ $ ,:: " ,:: ::::.··. ~] -- '= ;; ;;~ ~;::~ ;,;. ~ [fn T E' -;cog 2it] 0-'= '~ -s 'ii "'...,,.:,;: ~E~= ~- ~] ~· i:: ,~ t] 1:3 1]1i.~ilr ·-·--- r .-,. ' 1 i I I ' I ' I ' I I ' I ·--, s-=-. inn ' N ' GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 i,,,.,,.-; 1 INCH = 100 FT. .. 20D I \ \ \ \ \ ... TOA WEST: NOA 0.163 AC. FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY TIR rt / \ " r \ '-./ 1:j I ~ ,. G .p El \ _'./"--=•V .. /f£J_A.,E):S1°; ~;;fbA . .2 .i~<:.~. \?~ AC./ /I if/(."' j .1. ___ j / _d ·"' -.-~ 0: ' 0,/· / 0-\ "(~ \ "I . <" -;\, ) ) :.-\ /~/ ,,/'' -------- .r-'"}--~ ( . .~-ti----·---------- FIGURE 3: DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, ANO SITE CHARACTERISTICS EXHIBIT 18 ____ // ' ' ' ' ' / I ' I I L I ' I ' I ' I COPYl!1GHY@ 2011, 0.R S!RCffG CON,\.<..TING f~Gl"'-rnS 11'/C Bl D.R. STRONG CCt<SIJUt.C EHGUIEERS -. .......... ,-... _,,,., '"""""''"''""""·''"''" ::i;i?;.,'T;"..Jl. -.~~t:.m::" DRMTF.:D SY, YU' OESrGNfO BY, YI.P !'!IOJEC! D1G~£rn, UAJ o~rr, 1~-•~-2011 P80:U:CT HO.· 11062 5H£ET 1 fr 1 Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. PNW HOLDINGS LLC-FIELDBROOKCOMMONS CITY OF RENTON Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 27641 Covington Way SE, #2 Covington, WA 98042 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT Prepared For: PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 36"' Street Suite214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Attn: Justin Lagers November 8, 2011 Job#ll-121 Phone: 253-859-05!5 Fax: 253-852-4732 Sewall Wetland Consultin , Inc. 27641 Covington Way SE #2 Covington, WA 98042 PNW HOLDINGS LLC -FIELD BROOK COMMONS CITY OF RENTON CRITICAL AREAS REPORT Phone: 253-859-0515 Fax: 253-852-4732 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes jurisdictional wetlands on the 10.7 acre proposed Fieldbrook Commons PUD on the east side of Benson Road South, and north of Cedar Avenue South (SE 172"d Street) in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the site consists of three abutting parcels (Parcels# 2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023) located in a portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington . 0 " -~ ] H ,u .\J.~ll<'y Me";lt~.'1:I ::;,-"1"'r SITE C.~~(':H1;, - S."::'1::~,in() C~r;1e ~ Vicinity Map • Tiffany P1;1tk SE 1601:" 51 • C,:i~ade Pit;rl<: SF: 1G4i:'.' Sl .~ Cascade-Fairwood The site consists of undeveloped deciduous forest with some relic soil disturbance from past coal mining activity. The site is proposed to be developed into 161 unitPUD development with associated roads and infrastructure. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Fieldbrookl#J l-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Pagel Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site in March, April and August of 2011. The site was reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (W ADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The site was also inspected using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement (Version 2.0) dated June 24, 2010, as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Soil colors were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990). The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual/Regional Supplement all require the use of the three-parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas. Following delineation of the wetlands on the site, the flags were surveyed by Concept Engineering, Inc. (see attached survey). 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1 Existing Site Documentation Fieldbrook/# I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page] Prior to visiting the site a review of several natural resource inventory maps was conducted. Resources reviewed included the King County Soils Survey, King County iMap website with sensitive areas layers activated, the National Wetlands Inventory, the City ofRenton's Water Class map, the City ofRenton's wetland Inventory map, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats on-line mapping system. 3.1.1 Soil Survey According to the Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington (Snyder et al 1973), the site is mapped as containing Alderwood gravelly loam soils (AgC ) and Arents, Alderwood material (AmC). Alderwood soils are moderately-well drained soils formed in glacial till under conifers. Alderwood soils are not listed as a "hydric" soil according to the publicationHydric Soils of the United States (USDA NTCHS Pub No.1491, 1991). However, Alderwood soils can contain small inclusions of poorly drained hyric soils such Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soil series. Soil A1ap of the site 3.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory Fieldhrookl# 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page 4 According to the National Wetlands Inventory there is a portion of a forested and scrub shrub wetland located along the east side of the site. National Wetlands Inventory map 3.1.4 City of Renton Water Class Map According to the City of Renton Draft Water Class Map, there are no streams on the site. There is a Class 4 stream off-site to the east several hundred feet. '..-( ltit ~: ~ ll'JUt, -t 'E '~Mt 5'. Above: City of Renton 's Water Type Map ell~ 1-,1 ~ " .. t ' .., .; .. .., 1! " :P,. ,: ~· ; ::: ~ 'J!: ~~on ~ l>'M> s.: 1:ct 3.1.5 City ofRenton's Wetlands Map • Fie/dbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page5 ' City of Renton 's Wetland Inventory Map. According to the City ofRenton's Wetland Inventory Map, there is a wetland located to the east of the site. The scale of the map and lack of most streets make the actual distance from the site impossible to determine. 3.1.5 King Connty iMap Website The King County iMap website with wetland and stream layers activated portrays a wetland located along the east side of the site. 3.1.6 WDFW Priority Habitat Website Map Fieldbrook!#JJ-121 Se:wa/1 Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page6 According to the WDFW Priority Habitat Website with Public access layers activated, there is a wetland located along the east side of the site. 3.2 Field Observations 3.2.1 Uplands The center of the site is the topographic high point of the site, sloping off from here to the eats and west. The site although forested, has evidence of significant past surface disturbance. The northwest comer of the site contains an old paved area that previously contained a King County Fire Department building. The eastern side of the site has had significant past disturbance from historic coal mining activities. Topographic undulations and mounds are old coal tailings and a portion of a road. Review of the 1936 aerial photograph of the site revealed a small gravel road crossing the east side of the site Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 20 I I Page 7 as well as open barren ground with a grid-like appearance to the southeast. This is the location of an historic coal mine. The upland portion of the site is vegetated with a mix of red alder, big leaf maple, bitter cherry and douglas fir. Understory species include Indian plum, hazelnut, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, sword fern, vine maple and creeping blackberry. 3.2.2 Wetlands A total of six (6) wetlands were delineated on the site. Several of these have evidence that they may have been fully (Wetlands E & F) or partially (Wetland A) created by past human disturbance, probably related to coal mining activities and or work associated with them. Wetland A Wetland A was delineated with pink flags labeled Al-Al 9 and is located within a closed depression just north ofa large historic coal tailing pile. The shape and contours of the wetland suggest it was at least partially created by excavation, or compaction of a mix of tailings and natural soil. This wetland is a depressional wetland that has standing water within its center throughout the winter and spring and goes completely dry in August- October. Trash and old metal debris were observed within the wetland. The wetland is primarily scrub shrub and emergent in character, although a small forested perimeter is found along the edge of the wetland. Species observed include red alder (Alnus rubra), vine maple (Acer circinatum), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolinifera), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), slough sedge (Carex obnupta) and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) . Soil pits excavated within the wetland edge revealed 4" A horizon or organic laden gravelly loam with a color of lOYR 2/1. From 4"-16" in depth, a gravelly loam with common, medium, distinct, redoximorphic concentrations was observed with a color of lOYR 3/2. Soils were saturated on the edge of the wetland in March and included standing water in the center of the wetland. By late April the water had been reduced in the wetland to a small pool in the center, and in July and August the wetland was observed to be completely dry. Wetland A contains areas that would be classified as PFOIE (palustrine, forested, broad leaved deciduous, persistent, saturated), PSSlE (palustrine, scrub-shrub, persistent, saturated), and PEM2C (palustrine, emergent, non persistent, seasonally flooded) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page 8 According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M. 1, and despite the past apparent disturbance, Wetland A appears to best be classified as Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are defined in the Code as follows; ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more . of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not · Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or Typically, Category 2 wetlands have a 50' buffer measured from the wetland edge. Wetland B Wetland B (flags B l-B22-10,300sf on-site) consists of the western edge of a relatively large (@4-5 acres) located primarily off-site to the east. This wetland is known as a headwater wetland to Soos Creek, which forms further to the east of the site several hundred feet. This wetland is primarily forested although also contains a scrub-shrub component and a small portion (10%-20%) of seasonally standing water to the southeast of the site. Investigation into this wetland to a distance of 100' east of the eastern site boundary revealed no stream channel. The portion of this wetland found along the east side of the site consists of an area that has been historically disturbed from past mining activity, and evidence of grading and roads along the edge and to the north of the site are present. The majority of the wetland on-site is dominated by red alder, pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) and to the east, a few scattered western red cedars (Thuja plicata). The understory is sparse in some areas but generally consists of salmonberry, red osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, hardhack (Spirea douglasii), slough sedge, lady fern (Athyriumfilix-femina) and skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum). Soil pits excavated in this wetland revealed a dark (I OYR 3/2) gravelly loam with faint redoximorphic concentrations. Soils were saturated at a depth of -12" during our April delineation of this wetland. Wetland B would be classified as PFO lE (palustrine, forested, broad leaved deciduous, persistent, saturated) and PSS lE (palustrine, scrub-shrub, persistent, saturated) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). Fieldbrook/#l /-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page9 According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M.1, due to its headwater location, size < 10 acres, lack of any unique plant associations or listed species, Wetland B appears to best be classified as Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are defined in the Code as follows; -- ii, Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent :channel, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as_diking, ditchir.g or_ channelization; and/or~-_ Typically, Category 2 wetlands have a 50' buffer measured from the wetland edge. Wetland C Wetland C is a small (1,449sf), isolated scrub shrub digressional wetland that was flagged with flags Cl-C6 on the east end of the site. This wetland is a shallow depression vegetated with a mix of vine maple, Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) saplings, red-osier dogwood and slough sedge. Soil pits excavated within this wetland revealed black (1 OYR 2/1) mucky loam soils that contained 4" of standing water within its center in the early growing season. Wetland C would be classified as PSS 1 C (palustrine, scrub-shrub, persistent, seasonally flooded) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M.1, Wetland C would be best classified as Category 3 wetland. Category 3 wetlands are defined in Code as follows; iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (]) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and Fieldbrookl# / /. J 21 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 201 I Page IO (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as · the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. Typically, Category 3 wetlands have a 25' buffer measured from the wetland edge. Wetland D Wetland Dis an isolated, 7,67lsfforested wetland that was flagged with flags Dl-D22 near the center of the site. This wetland is vegetated with an overstory ofred alder and Oregon ash, with an understory of vine maple, red-osier dogwood and slough sedge. Soil pits excavated within this wetland revealed black (1 OYR 2/1) mucky loam soils that contained 4" -12" of standing water within its center in the early growing season. Wetland D would be classified as PFOIE (palustrine, forested, broad leaved deciduous, persistent, saturated) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M.l, due to relatively undisturbed character, and its lack of any unique plant associations or listed species, Wetland D appears to best be classified as Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are defined in the Code as follows; ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more · of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category I or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc November 8, 2011 Pagel] Typically, Category 2 wetlands have a 50' buffer measured from the wetland edge. Wetland E Wetland Eis a very small (68sf) scrub-shrub wetland that appears to have been formed by the past road constructional SE 172nd Street. The wetland contains several red-soi er dogwood shrubs as well as Himalayan blackberry. A small culvert leads from this wetland into the street drain system. Soil pits excavated within this wetland revealed black (lOYR 2/1) gravelly loam soils that was saturated at the surface in the early growing season. Wetland E would be classified as PSS 1 C (palustrine, scrub-shrub, persistent, seasonally flooded) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M. l, Wetland ER would be best classified as Category 3 wetland. Category 3 wetlands are defined in Code as follows; iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more , of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands 'are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related ,hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and , (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal 'and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (]) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. Typically, Category 3 wetlands have a 25' buffer measured from the wetland edge. Wetland F Wetland F appears to have formed in a historically disturbed area along the northwest corner of the site. This wetland was flagged with flags F l-F5 and is 1,591 sf in size. Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. November 8, 2011 Page 12 Soils are very disturbed with old tire ruts and ditching. This area abuts the old Fire Station site to the north. Veegation found within this wetland consists primarily of hardhack, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), some red osier dogwood and himalayan blackberry. A few of black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and Oregon ash are found along the boundary but not enough to consider this a forested wetland. Soil pits excavated within this wetland revealed mottled, dark (lOYR 2/2) gravelly loam soils that was saturated within 12" of the surface in the early growing season. Wetland F would be classified as PSS 1 C (palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M. l, Wetland F would be best classified as Category 3 wetland. Category 3 wetlands are defined in Code as follows; iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more , of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands ,are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related >hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet 'modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as · the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. Typically, Category 3 wetlands have a 25' buffer measured from the wetland edge. 4.0 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Fieldbrook!li I 1-12 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 201 I Page 13 Wetlands A has a moderate function for water quality, hydro logic function and wildlife habitat The small size , past disturbance from mining, and close distance to disturbance reduce these functions somewhat. Wetland B has a higher functional value as this is a multiclass wetland located at the headwater of Soos Creek, This wetland stores and attenuates flood waters as well as removes water contaminants from the water column, which would otherwise pass downstream into Soos Creek a salmon bearing water, Wildlife habitat is relatively high in this wetland as a result of the complexity of the vegetation, hydrologic regimes and relatively intact buffers. What does reduce the habitat of this wetland and all of the wetland son-site is the isolation of this area within a relatively urban landscape. The wetland and surrounding upland is totally isolated by residential homes as well as paved City streets, Wetlands C and D have low to moderate function which is primarily due to their isolated location in the landscape, lack of vegetation complexity, small size and lack of connection to other habitat areas. Wetland E and F are oflow value as they are very small, are highly disturbed and have been altered by past uses. 5.0 REGULATIONS In addition to the wetland regulations previously described for wetlands and streams, certain activities (filling and dredging) within "waters of the United States" may fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), The ACOE regulates all discharges into "waters of the United States" (wetlands) under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. Due to the increasing emphasis on Endangered Species Act compliance for all fills of Waters of the United State and Waters of the State, both the Corps of Engineers and Washington Department of Ecology should be contacted regarding permit conditions, compliance, and processing prior to commitment to any fill of wetlands or streams for this project. 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT Fieldbrookl#J l-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc November 8, 2011 Page 14 The proposed project is the construction of a 161 PUD project with associated infrastructure. The location of Wetlands D, E and F result in most of the developable property on the site being encumbered by wetland or buffer. Since these wetlands, particularly Wetlands E and F are oflow value, and Wetland D is small in size but because of its linear shape impacts the sites usable space so greatly, we are proposing filling these three wetlands. As a result, it is our intention to fill these wetlands and provide adequate mitigation for their lost functions by creating wetland on the eastern side of the site in and around Wetlands A, B and C. Impacts to wetlands must be justified through a mitigation sequence as detailed in City of Renton Code. This sequencing requires addressing the following criteria; a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; The site contains three small wetlands which the developer proposes to fill and mitigate for through the creation of a new wetland area and enhanced buffer areas for the existing wetlands A, B & C in the eastern third of the site. Wetland (F) located on the western side of the site is Category 3 wetland measuring 1595sf. Due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly out to 1081h Ave S.E. the developer is unable to avoid direct impact to this wetland. Wetland (E) located in the center of the site and adjacent to S.E. 172nd St. measures 68sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland. Due to the requirement to dedicate and construct the other half of the S.E. 172nd St. ROW the developer is unable to avoid direct impacts to this wetland. Wetland (D) is located generally in the center of the project and is rated as a Category 2 wetland measuring 767lsf. b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; The developer previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around this wetland, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building locations to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to construct. c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and Resoration of this wetland in this location would not be feasible due to the location of the impacts and configuartion of the parcel and remaining wetland. d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; Fieldbrook!# 11 · 121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 201 I Page /5 This is not applicable to this site as no historic wetlands are located on the property. ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and A total of9334sfofwetland will be filled. As described in Code; "Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions". Additionally, Code states" Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. In no cases shall they be lower". Code Specifies the following mitigation ratios for wetland impacts; i. RATIOS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION: Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio Category 1 Forested 6 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered. Emergent 2 times the area altered. Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered. Emergent 1 .5 times the area altered. The following table outlines the wetlands to be filled and the required wetland creation using the City of Renton mitigation ratios: Wetland Size Category Vegetation Ratio Reqnired Type Wetland Creation D 7671sf 2 Forested 3:1 23013sf E 68sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5:1 102sf F 1595sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5:1 2393sf Total 25508sf Creation Conceptual Mitigation Fieldbrook/#11-12 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 20! I Page 16 To compensate for the impact to 9334sf of Category 2 &3 wetland, we arc proposing creating 25,508sf of wetland along the west edge of Wetland Bas well as between Wetlands A and C. This results in an overall wetland mitigation ratio of2.73:l (created wetland:impacted wetland). This mitigation will create Category 2 wetland for a combination of Category 2 and 3 wetland impacts. As depicted on the attached Conceptual Mitigation Plan, 25,508sf of area will be excavated out to a similar depth to the existing wetland in two areas to intercept the surficial groundwater table and create conditions favorable to create wetland hydrology. A berm will be placed between the two wetland creations due to the differences in elevation of the two areas. This will prevent wetland creation between Wetlands A and C from draining into Wetland B. Hydrologic monitoring will be conducted using peizometers in the proposed mitigation area through the winter and spring to verify groundwater elevations. This area will then be graded back at a slope no steeper than 3: 1 (horizontal:vertical). The area will then be planted with a mix of native trees, shrubs and herbaceous species and will also include several habitat features (logs and snags) to increase its habitat function. The goal will be to create at least 25,508sf of area meeting all three wetland criteria (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) as specified in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (W ADOE, March 1997). All disturbed buffer areas will be restored with a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. The resulting wetland creation area will be monitored for 5 years as required by Code. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 REFERENCES Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 17 Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79-31, Washington, D. C. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method ofvegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64. Diers, R. and J.L. Anderson. 1984. Development of Soil Mottling. Soil Survey Horizons, Winter 1984, pg 9-15. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps ofEngineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. City of Renton Municipal Code Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kolhnorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Misc. Pub!. No. 1491. Reed, P ., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). 1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. Reed, P .B. Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USFWS supplement to Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9) May 1988. Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 1.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PROJECT OVERVIE\V October 31,201 l Page 18 To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetland, it is proposed to create 25,SOSsfofwetland along the west side of Wetland B, a Category 2 wetland as well as between Wetlands A and C. 2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to enlarge Wetland B as well as connect Wetlands A and C through excavation to create wetland conditions. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2.1 Create 25,508sf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3 .1 Pre-construction meeting 3 .2 Construction staking 3 .3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3 .4 Clearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3.7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3.10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 19 The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and hydroseeding are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with native hydroseed mix or mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will re-seed or over-seed all hydroseeded areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3.7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the County's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner. 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the County biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3.9 Monitoring Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 20 The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. The County's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation & Grading 4.1. l The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of sub grade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4.1.2 The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all blackberry varieties onsite. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. 4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials 4.2.1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60. l "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 4.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval. Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consultiug, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 21 4.2.4 All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.5 Substitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2.7 The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation 4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. 4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3 .3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3 .5 All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 22 4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.1 A fall-winter installation schedule (October 1st -March 15th ) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1" ) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. 4.4.2All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with native mixes as specified on the plans, as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated and a grass cover established by October 1 ". If the cover is not adequately established by October 1 ", exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used. 4.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 4.5 Site Conditions 4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 4.5.2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 4.5.3 Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 4.5.4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 4.5.5Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area. 4.5.6All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area. 5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall \Vetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 23 This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope 5.1. l To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5.l.2Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed). b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 Watering Requirements Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 24 5.3.1 If plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months (October through March 15th ), watering is not required. However, watering will be encouraged if plants mortality rises due to dry conditions. 5.3.2If plantings are installed during the summer months (March through October l '' ), a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand- watered. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on-site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Mouitoriug Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the County Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off. 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of two tasks. The first is the inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in the stream and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. 6.1.3 Hydrology Monitoring of hydrology within the created wetlands will be conducted to confirm that wetland hydrology has been created. Sampling points will be established within the created wetlands. At these points monitoring wells will be installed to determine the level of surface or groundwater in these areas. 6.2 Standards of Success Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 25 6.2.1. Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon a 100% plant survival for all planted vegetation at the end ofY ear I; 90% at the end of Year 2; 85% at the end of Year 3; and 80% at the end of Year 5. 6.2.2. Up to 20% of any stratum can be composed of desirable native volunteers when measunng cover. 6.2.3. No more than 10% cover of non-native or other invasive, e.g., Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, evergreen blackberry, reed canary grass, Scots broom, English ivy, morning glory, etc. ls permissible in any monitoring year. Bond-holders are encouraged to maintain mitigation sites within these standards through the monitoring period, to avoid corrective measures. 6.2.4 Wetland hydrology will be considered to be successfully attained when inundation or saturation within 12" of the surface is present for 2 continuous weeks or more in the growing season (March 15-0ct!S). 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7 .1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7 .2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the County approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency/maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: -Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigating the stream area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. -Reseeding stream and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/sedimentation occurs. -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. r-- Note: Base mnp provided by D.R. Strong based upon survey of Sewall Wetland Consulting Wetland Delineation. FILDBRo'OK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC WETLAND DEL/NEA TIDN MAP JOB# 11-121 DATE~ \ . DRAWN BY. ES SCALE' 1"=100' REVISED DES/GNER.·___cCocS __ _ Sewall Welland Cunsultin_[, [nc Ecologic~! Services 27641 Covlngton WHy SE#2 CrlVington, WA ?8042 ' ' I I 1 ~I 251-859-0515 Fnx 253 852 q732 ___J jogogj ™ T T + -~ + + + ±.._± 25,503 SF WETLAND CREATION 9303 SF WETLAND Fill 7,485 SF BUFFER AVERAGING -ADDITION 1:=:=:-:-:--::-:-3 7,485 SF BUFFER AVERAGING· -_---_----SUBTRACT/ON em 15,934 SF BUFFER RESTORATION FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS -~-·-·;,: --,tfl ~~· -~~..,~-::.-~-- Note: Base map provided by D.R. Strong based upon survey of Sewall Wetland Consulting Wetland Delineation. FILDBROQK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC CONCEPT DEL/NEA TION MAP JOB# 11-121 ORAWNBY___f§_ REVISED, •. ____ _ DATE_·-~==~-Sewall Welland Consulting, Inc SCALE: 1"=100' EcologicHI s~rvic~~ 27641 Covington Way SH2 DESIGNER: TS Cnvington, WA 98042 253-8S9-05IS fa< 2SJ-852-4Di ··.·.::i U!'\....J_ rJ v-.r \,.,t., jt...J.. //- WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mo1.mta!ns, VaHey9, Ind Cout Region ProjocVS,te Applicant/Owr,er lnvesli\latori•I Ft/'-/d /,I),,;)/,.(, C~y/Co.mly: ~h,,-" Sampling Oalo '-{ ~ l, "Z...-f f Ptvw 'ric:>\a;P ~,.,..) :S Slate·~ S•mpjlngPoJnt: b 'r''#-\ EA s~ -..L\ Section. Townohlp, Rtng•: $ z.. "'1, TZ3 """'I /t5' E- Landra,m lh<ilslope_ 1erroc•. etc) Lacal rellel ICQr!<:o.,.., C011VH, Mnt): $Iopa(%): __ Sut>r~,on1LRR). Lat Long Datum: ___ _ Soil Map Unit Nam•· N'M oln1lnc,rtj011:, -----~-- Ne oJ,matN: I ~)'lro10;,c coM~lon, o, !he site typical for this time of year? YH __ No----, (I! no, 1tXpl11!1 In Rom;1NC1.) / Aro V"l1elalL0<1 __ Sa,1 __ or H)'<lrology __ 1lgntncefl(ly dlstu<bold? Ar• "Normal Clrcum1111no.1' pruent7 YH £ Na __ _ ;.,.,, Vogemkin --·Soil __ or Hy<frolog)' __ nalura!y ptoi,remaUc1 (If nHded, Cllplain any ,n,wero In Roma,~• J SUMMARY OF FINOINGS -Athch site map showing sampl!ng point locat!ons, transects, Important featuru, etc, ., ... ~ "'··--·~ "·· ./ Hy<lrophyt:c Veg ... ". No__L_,,. I ,./ '"--"' Hydnc Soil Pretonl? Welland Hy<lrology P,e .. nl? Remark, "' No ,/ 11• the 51mple1,1ze: L..;.,Jl,,,I\,,. 1. 4uA ~ ... fe, I '------ Absolute Domin an( Indicator rl>omlniri"i:.THt WOriiihMt: ~~~ Numtiero/Dc:rmll'lants~cln _]_Q_ ___ f?;(:,.. ThatNeOBL.FACW,o,FAC: IA) ------Total Number of Oomlnant Sp,releo Aa'oH All S111ta· __.!t._ IB) ·--------------------. ~!~e.n_t o.!._~?m!~~~.~pe~~·-..,, C S:aQ/loo/5IZ (Plo!~lze: ) ---, .... , •• -~•,• ~-··, M,, ~-~ ,,.,.,1 1. f'" r , rr. ....-... & e:,. "I' /"Ac_ P1•v•l•nc1 lndu worklhHt: •T"'•'Covo, 2 Ot.,.,,14-,..._ C-l.10.h"""-'"S: 3V ---f:iiicv IR!ai%C2Yerot ------08l1pecleo ___ "• -' --' ------------___ ~ Total Cove, ~-' '' ""'"" ~'-'-•c, ,,,, f'l'/::,W apocln ___ d • FN::,1peclH ---''" FACU lptolH ___ ,< • UPL 1p11cN!1 ---.0 • Co!11mn Tcr1a'9: ---IA) ----I') 1 --~ rh1t.. ~ ·~"""li16 ~ ----=-t-'- ' ___ ___ Prevalence Ind .. = 8/A'" ; ___ ___ __ HydlOPhytlc Vo,g•tlotlon Indicator•: . _ 1 . Rapid Tul for Hydrop/l)'tlc Vegela"on ------'·---------------------------- ------------'° -------------------- "· ------ Woodt Y•ot stratum (Plol 51ze: ----~ % Bari Grour,:i in H•rb Slr,,IL>'TI R•m•r'<s US Army Corpa ol Englneon ---" Total Covtr --------___ • To!•I Covu _ 2 • Oomlnance r .. 11o >50% _ J•Prw11<1ncelndulir:!.3.0' _ 4 • Morpl'rolcglCill Maptatlon.' (Pro,klo 1uppof1lng d-at1 tr! Rem1rk, or on• uparat• ohHt) _ 5 • W•Hand Non-VHCYIU Plilnl•' _ Problem1Uc H)'drophy11c Vegellitlon' (E~pl1ln) 11ndll:3tors or hydrlc IC.I andwe~and hydrol(>Q'y mu•! be preunl, union disturbed or problematic HydtOphytlc Veg1ta1lon Pr111nt? v .. ,,/ W••l•rn Moun1aino, Volloyt, and CoHI -V•111lon 2 D SOIL Sam~ling Po,nl ---- Pi01111 DH<:>llpllon; (llHctlb• !o !he depth needed lo da<:umen! tho Indicator ar con!irm 1he abu"iica o(i'1dicato,i":f Depth __ ~ ColsrfU)Qiat\ ....!L.. Colmfmcltn~dw ~ 1 ..lxllL. ~ _____.In1lja_ ----'=='----- _l__ ¢ V i::.a ~ /t-111.,-i,Jz --------.,91~ ---- ------------------------------------------'Type: C•CO/loen1ratlon O"De~elf<ln flMgRed.~~•d Matrbc q; .. cove,lld 01 Coale<! Sand Gra,n• 'Locatlo_n Pl~Pore Llnln~, .t..1-·M~~ Hydrlc Soll lndlcatort: (Appllcabla to all LRRa, un1u1 otherwl,. no!ed.) Indicator• for Problematic ltydrlc Soll,': _ Hl1to1011.-.1) _ Son<1yR0dox(S5) _ 2cmMuc~IA10) _ H11llc Ep1p11<1on (A2) _ Str;pp,od Ma!tix (S61 _ Rod Parent Mater,al (TF2) _ BlickHltlk:(AJI _ Lo•my Mucky Mineral tF1) (exc:epi MLRA l) _ Very Shattow DarK Sunaco {TF12J _ Hyd1ogon Sulfld<I IM) _ Loamy Gi,,y.d Matrrx (F2) _ 01nu (E•plain In R~marfr•) _ Depjoled Ber-Oa1k Sur/ace (A1') _ Depleted Ma!fi• IFJ) _ nick Ou~ sunaca (.1.121 _ Rodm< Dark Sunac• (F6) 11ndica1or• o! hydr~pnyt,c vogeta!lon and _ !laMy Mud<y MlnU11 IS1) _ Depleled DaM< Surf3ce (F7J Sandy Gleyed Ml!r1x (S4) =-R&,jo~ Depru,kl,.. (Fil_!_ weUand ny<3rology mu•I be pre,~m. uni••• d101urbe<l or problemal1c fiA•trlctlY• Uy•r (H p11unll: Typ• ----------1 H1d1lc Soll Pruanl? 't'u "° ./ Depth (Jn,:hn) Ffomork•: , .. ,.I.,. .._I,.-cf ,V6 HYDROLOGY I Wallend H~drologv indlc:etor1; Pciawx m@aw, cmio1m11m oCROe rt9Yfrod· chrcts ,11 1bll11ao1v1 SCS"INUY !D\/(Piltm, I? 9( more [19\!kN] _ SumlcoW1\u1.-.1) _ HlghW•t••T•blolA2) _ S11u,1Mlon lAJ) _ W1!er•S!alned Lnvet (B9) (••c•pt MLRA 1, 2, ~A. 1nl'atn(B13) _ Ory-Si,noowa1erTable(C2) _ Stdlmenl 01po91t1182) _ Hydrog•n Sull'lae 0dOf(C1) _ Saturation Visible D!l Aer!al lmagory (C91 _ Orlft Dopa•"-{B~I _ 0,1,Hred Rhlzo,phereo along Lr<lng Roo!! (CJ) _ G~omorphlc Poo,llon (D2) _ ,',~el r.l1t or C;uo! (84) _ Praoenco ol Ft educed Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aqu1t~rd ID31 _ Iron DeflOIH• (8~) _ Rccon! Iron Reducl!o.n In Tlll•d Scilt IC6) _ FAC-Neutul Tul (051 _ Sumlce !loll C,a,;1<0 (BBi _ Slunl..:l or Slf~Uad Plan I! !01) (LRR AJ _ Flaiud AAl Mound• ID~) (LRR A) _ lnundotlon VII~• on Mrl1l lmag•ry (B1) _ Other (Expt11<n In Flem•rllll) _ F,001-Hu~e Hummcck• lD7J SparHl'f V"!l'lated CoMIVI Surhce !86) Field 6bur11etlono: Sulflc1 W1ttr Preoent? w,1., hbl• Pr11en1? Saturauon Prennt? I (!nclude1 caplllory ff~ / /. ""~"'· "" '"""" y., __ No~~ (Inch••). W•U•nd Hydro '" __ No~=(lncho1): ___ _ , .. _ "' -- bucnbe Re~ord•d Cata (aiieari, gauge, monit<lrlr,g wen, aciial p11010,, p1eviOY1 ln1p,i<.1ion1J, If ava,l1bl• R•markl <k) ,,-,J.,. eJ-~ ,._ '" eo,L US Army Corp• ol E~glnu,, Wutern Mountai1>1, Valley•. and Coast -ver!lon 2 0 wet-ft- WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-WHtl!m Mountains, Va111y1, and Cout Region ProjeCVSlte: FiVd /,('l:Jt:)/,,l Clly/Counly JZt,..;h, ,../ Simpling D•t•: 4 "'Z. '2.....-f { Appllcant/0,,,w: Pr,Jw lrtc>\,&rry ( Stilt:~ BlmptlngPolnt .PP.iE1..- trwo,t1ga1or111 e,{_ &....,! ( S..::tlon,Town1hlp,R1ng1: '!>Z....,, T2"):/\{ &KE- LaMform {hllllloPt-, l&rr•ce, etc I Lo~•I rolltl (C""cov., COrN'tll, flOllti Sfopt ['Ao): -- Suoug1on ILRR~ Lal: Lonp: O•lum: ---- SoO Mop UM Name· N'i{J ,:l1ullk:1Hon: ------,,-- Ar• <:llmatlcl~y<lrolog,cr;ar,,:11110n1on the 1~1typl0llllot1hlt llmeoryett? Yeo __ "--(Uno, ..:ploln ~ R1mlfk1.) ~ Aro V~e!lllon --So< --D< Hydrolo,,iy __ 1ignlnoontly dla1Ulbtl<!1 "11 'No,m1I C~eo..,,oll...C.I' P,IUn\1 Yu _v_ "-"--- Ne VOll~t•ll<m __ So< __ o, Hydrology __ n11uroiy probl1m111:? (It nnded, .. p1m •ref -w.r. In Romor~•-1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point loc1t!on8,tnn11te!s, Important features, •tc:. olallon p,-.. nl? Vu H~<lrophyt>c Veg_ YH___L_,,,,,.No __ Hrdnc Soll Pr~tor,!? W•tl&nd Hydrola11v P,c .. ril? R•m•iis1 Ye• ,,,r No Yu"-::2 No-- VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 1 1• th, S.mplod Aru wl!hlr, & Wthn<I? ,./ ,, Aboolut• <>mlnan! Ind o&t-01 omln•nc-.---Tiif woil<il'i .. l: ~ {f'k>I sl2e I ~ .il2ls.lul ..Awla... N...,t,or ot Oo~n.,l Speol .. 1. .4 ~S io rb --5:Zl_ ---.2C.,. Tho! Ar• OBL, F/1.CW, or F/1.C '·------------- ------ 9aPIIOQ1Sb!Ull SiC?ll"ll \Plol !lzt: -~-- ___ .. Tolal Co~.r Tot•I Numb.r o! Oomi'l1nl SposW&l1nC11n<1uwork1h11t , ------I2t11 % s:;w,c st Ml!IHotv ro:· ------OBL1peoln ---''"---- ------Fll(Nl1p1QH ---,>•---- --------FAC ope,:ju ---,a•------ ~ (Plol•r;z•·---- ___ • Total Cowr ----------- FACU 1,:,0<:IH ---,< • ---- UPL 1,:,00ill ---o I•---- Columr, TcrlaJ1· ---i'I ----IS) ' --------Pr1n11nc1 lnd1, ... BIii • '· --------yd1ophy\lcVti•Lot1onlndlo1tor1: <. --------_ 1 -R•pkl Tu\ f..,..11ydrophytlo V1g.t11ion ' -------------------------- w --" · ------ w.;,ooy \/lot !Wu11ro IPlot llio ---- ---~ Tot11 Cover ------------ ',I, Ba!e Ground in H•rb Stratum ---" Tot•I Covtr Flemario.1: us Army Corp, of Englnura _ 2 -Oomlntno,i Tnl 11 ~S0",1, _ 3 -P11~1l1nc1 Ind•~ 11 ,3.0' _ ~. MorphologlCII ....,.,p1aljon1' (PfO'I\Qe eupportlng 111111n Rtmtrklo or on 111patl!t 1httt) _ s. W1t11nd Non.v11w11r Plants' _ P1obl1m1~~ Hydf<l~~)'lic V•p,,!1tlon 1 (Expl1ln) 'llldlC'll1o~ er hydtlc 1oi\ Ind IWlltand hydrol<lgy mu1t be preun~ u~u1 di1tu,t>od"' problemt1io. HydrophyHc \lo,g.ia!lon p, ..... 11 ./,,_ , .. -- Wut1m Moun"ln1, V1ll•yo. 1nd CoHt -Vo111"'1 21> SOIL. sampbrl\l Point Prolll• C111crlpllon: (Oucrlb• to 1he o•p1h nHdt,:j lo ,aocum•n1 1h1 1n,a1ca1or or conllrm th• obunc• ol lndlc•to••-! Ot~h a~dQ! ElilllCH ~ Gc1Qc(mo1t1l ~ CPIPCIITTR'I!\ _Js_. ....rw.:. ..J.QL_ ..Jll1IU_ _!j___ / D 1,Z. .. / I _!_k._ U;':tl!c )Ll. , ... -~ ,_,,,. ,., • _r_ == ---------------------------------------------------------., · C•Ccno.ntratlon O•O. le~on /1.M•Reduce<:I Mair'" CS=Cov6fed or Coated Stnd Ora1n1. •1 oe1111on PlmPore Llr>"10 M•Maln• Hy<hlc Soll ln<IIMtoro: (Appll.,.blt co all LRR•, unlu1 oth•rwlu notlOd.) lndlc1to11 tor Problamr,rlc Hydrlc Soll~': _ Hllto•otllll) _ Sandy /I.WO~ (S51 _ 2cmMuck(A101 ~ f~tpodon lll:I) _ Strlpp,od M•!rb< (86) _ Rod P11ent t,'lal~rl•l llf2) -ck HIiiie (Al) _ Loorny Mucky Mlnual lf1)jueaptMUtA 1) _ V•ry snaiowO••• Sur1a~• ITF12) _ Hydrogtn aumci, (Ml -Loorny <31oytd Mo!rl• lf2) _ 01h11 (E~p111n In Rem1rl:o) _ 01p11ttd !111,:,w Oark &ur11<>• ("11) ~;·;.:·~~r1~!! 11'8) _ Thick O•t~ 9ur11<>t (A12) 'IM~atou ol hydroph)'lle v~oiallon ac.d _ 911ndy Mutfri, Mfrwlti {S1) _ D•pl•lad Oork sur1:w:1 (Fl) ~~and hydrology mu,1 b• pr~,~nt. S111dy Ql1y1d Mirui• IS~) R1do• Dep.renloo, (fa) unteo• dl,lurl>!d or p,oojematl~ Aulrlctlw u,1r (It p.raun!): I Hyd1lc Sell Pru1nt? , .. /, Typt: Otp!II (1Mh11): Mem111<1· HYOftOLOGY I WtU1nifH~drci09ylndJ.,.1011! Pdm"'ll 'ndlctl9"f IIDIOICTNrn g[ QOI ft9Ul(t<I' stJstj< ol m,11nnM SfcnQdlD: IMl919D O or morr ro9LllfOdl _ Surf1lo1W1!1r(ll1) _ Hit:lh W1t•r Tobi• (112) _ S1!ur>lll<>11!A3) _ WIier M•rtl• 1e1J _ Stdlfflffll 0.poUI 182) -Ori~ Dopo1H1 (113) _ /l,lg1I Mat Of Cr.11! (8~) _ lrotl 0tl)(l11!e {B~) _ Sutflo• Boll Crtck9 (II~) _ W•t•r-St,lne<I Lt•~·· (8~1 \UC•pt MLAA 1, 2, ~A, •nd ~8) _ Sal,Cru•tlB1\) -Aqua!IC lnv•111b<l!U (B1~) _ Hydro11•n Suifldt OC<lr (C1) -Waltr,Stoln•d Leav<t (89) IMLRA \, 2. ~A, tnd ~8) _ 01alna1,o P~tt1rns (910) _ D')'·Su1on water T~l>le IC2) _ S11ur1l1on y,.lble on A~rl>l lmagorv (C91 _ Oxldlud Rhlzo1pn•r•1 alo<>11 L"ln11 Root1 jC3i _ Goom<>rphlc Po,~lon (D2) _ Pr~uM• of Re<luctd 110n IC~) _ Shallow Aqu11~r<1 (03) _ Recent Iron FteCuctlon In TtH•G Soio lCH) _ FAC•N1u1111 Tut (05) _ Stun1oa or Blrtuadl'llnto (D1J (LRRA) _ Ra1ud An\ MwMo 106] {LRR A) _ lnund1Uon Vnilblt en Atrl1l lm1g11y (BT) Splrut, V.~11t1d CoMIYI Sur11c1 (B!) _ Olhfr\E~p4aln In F11m11~1) _ frott-Huv, Hummock• (D7) Fltid Dburntlont: Surltot W11,1 P11un1? Wfflr Tllill Pltotfll? hM'lllo!ln P1111nt? I {ln9hl<l•• ,:,,p1~~.frln.9!l Yu No / O~pth (lm:l\•1): -~=- rn 2 No __ 01¢,(ln,::l\tt)·_~o",,,~- 'T'II _£ No __ Oi!plh {ln,nnJ: " ~ Wtlltnd Hydrology Pruant1 Y .. / ~-" Oucili>t Rtcordod P•1a(1v1arn Ql\lgt, rno.-,1or1,,,. w!I~ aerial ph<,tos, pravlw• ln,rpec11on1), 1/ ~va•lab!e . 11um1tlii: USNmy Corp,t o!Er>9inHro Wutorn Mo.,,,lain•, Vllll•yo. an<! Co•,t-V•~•on 2 0 I • I i "'I 0 , I : \.i ~ I : > I • E ~ r s ' ·I· ? .. ,. • i ' • ' 0 f . 0 0 " ' ' • ~ I ' • ' 0 t ' . 0 I ' I I ' $ E ~ ! r .s 0 ' • ' ' 0 i ~ f . ' ~ '" , J 1 - I . z '\i > ' u f > I WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Wut,m Mountain,, Valltys, and Co11t Region P,ojocVSlt1 ,1'1..,,/, /:,('A)/,,<. Clly/Countr ~~ .-/ $1rr,plrig D1t1: 4 rZ, -z..: ... f { ,l,;,plicanl/0....,.,~r: Slllt; ~ S1mpUng Point Q j' 1)- lnvutigato((•I: StClle'\ Tawn1hl1>, A1ngo: l;i ~.., r f 2,'3 /\,{ fl.:5°E:... Lan<!lorm lhillslo~o. len,ct, ttQ.I Li>C1l ••l~t (concnt, conyu. n0111) Slope (%t-- Subrog,on (LR.q I Lil: LDng DttYm: ---- 5011 Map Uo1I N•m• NWl daulff,;1IIO<l' -----~-- ,.,,. co,m,11c I hydrclcg1c condl!lons en 11\t •~• !j1ploa11o, tl>I• llm• of yu1? Yu __ "' __ (11 no, upl•ln In R,ma,kt.) ~ Aro Vtge1allon __ , 8011 __ or HydrolQVY--1lg111~cantly ""MDe<!? ,v, 0 Norm11 Cl'c,im111ncH' i,rutn1? YH .L.. No __ _ Ne V0Qe111lon __ 8011 __ or Hydrology __ naturtly PfO~•m•fl~ (II nndt<l, t~pltln lfYf ,n..,..ra In R1mark1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site m1p ahowlng umpllng point locatlone, tranncts, Important featuru, etc. &!9hna "'••••••~ "--Hydropt,yllc v,0 •. _,._ I WollaM H Yu~ No I Remark1· ydrclog1Ftuent? Yu~No · Yu "' Hyd1ic Soil PtUon1' VEGETATION-Uu BCl>!!f11!ffc names of plants 1 1• !ht S.m!)lt,d ArH wl1hln • Wirll•nd? Yu_L No r~'"""" ~ I; L"""~. !ff).'~ i'~~, ~~- Ab•oluf1 O,,min~~I ltldlclfor I Oom/nonc, hit worluhHf: ~~ ftf..1 Number0JD0m1!1•nlSp1d11 ~---,,._.~ ThltAl"•OEIL,FACW.otFAC ___£_ '" ..'.1<L.. == "li+L Tc111 Nume« of Domlnaot 8pedn "'"°"" .'JI S!rtll s- I :aNms/ b s1u1um (F1o1 ,12,. J ---• TOIII CO-.tr Fore on! Of Dominant Spo<,111 Thot /vi OBL. FACW, or FM;· /v(,' .1 1. ~ C •rt .,.-.,.;,; rtv•l•11c1 lndt.t WOfklht-l;" 2 ?.,.,._""' ,+.J....-.~ IMll'HIC9YSC9t M111l1nh'b'f J 06L11>9ol11 ---""-- ------------------------FACW1p~u ___ ,,. ___ _ --------FACtp•du ---.a• ___ _ I -------------------.-,,-,.-,-,"-.. --FACU•P,,111tt ---""---- UPL1p,od"' ---•••---- '" '""' ~ (Pio\ 1lzo ) -'-C, f'.A4,... I 1, e-,;c.. obe::: ...... f...... ~------::, . CoiumnT,;r!olo· ---IAI ____ '" -- --------------- '" ------" ------ WQO<JY Yin• S!rali m (F10! s,a ---- % B>ro G!ouM '" Herb SlrBl1Jnl Romark$ \JS Hmy Corp• 01 E:nplnoort ------ ---• TOIII Co.'•t ------------ ---• Total Co.'u Frtvalonce l(ldu • BJA • ydroii1i)'11, VOit\lUon IMlc110U: _ 1 -Rapkl To! for Hy,:lrophy!lo V~otttlon _ 2-0omln11101T11til,.,0% _ 3. Prtv1l1n~• 1ndo• te s~c' _ ~ -M01phologl~Jl ,',d1pb!laM' (Pr<1vldo tu~l11~ d1111n Rtm1rk1 won I up,,,at, lhtlt) _ 5 • Wtlll(ld Non-VUCIJII/ Pl1n1•' _ P1obtem111lcH~drophyli~V,g11ttlM 1 IE~plalnl 11ndi¢110111 of hydr~ 1<>11 andw.Ctrid hydrology mlJI! t.. i,rHOl\t, un11u dostu,bld or ptolllom1llc. Hydrop!!yHc V991uUon PrM•nl7 y., / --,, __ _ W•tt•m Mo,mt11n,. Vall•~•, and CoH1-V•ralon 2.0 SOIL Sampling Poln,: ---- P1olllt 011orl~llon: (Cn,rlb• 10 1h• aop1h n .. dod !o oooumont th• lndlc11a, or confirm th• 1bunc1 of indlca!o--.--.--:J" Dtplh flft<l91\ ftat11rr; ~ :~;;r~}l,....:L_ COl<K/fflD'I!\ _.L-~ l9S 1 t;;J;;:. __________ _ ------------------------------------------------------------ 'Typt· C•Concon1rt11on D•~ple!lon RM•R1duco_<1 Ma!ri, CSzCov,,.d CfCoa!od :!11ndGrain, 'loaatlon: PL•Porollni_ng M•M~\CJ_! Hy<lrlc Soll lndlcatofl: (Appllc.obl• IO lij Lf\f\1, un/111 omuwtu natt,d.) lndlc&!or, lo, Ptabl1m1tlc Hydrlc :5011,' _ Hl1to1ol [M) _ Sand~ l'hdo,:(S51 _ 2 cm Muo~ IMO) _ Hl1Uc fptp,9don IA2) _ St,lppod M1tr1• (86) _ Red Pa11/'I\ Matonal (TF1) _ 8l1<>kHIIIMl(AJJ _ lg1rny Mucky Mlneta1 IF1) lt~uptMLfl:A 1) _ Vory St,.~!.,.....0111< Sul1>oo (TF12) _.c'Hrd1og1n Sulffd• IM) _ Loamy meyed Main,, 1F2) _ OIMr IE•ptoln In R1mark1) _ D1p11l1d hlaw0ark811111.:. (A11) _ Oopll!te<I Matri• IF31 _ Thlek Dark Sul110,0 (A12) ..r'l'l:•do~ Dor~ Sul10C1 IF~) _ Sandy Muek-f MIMlll 181) _ OoplotedOark Surla,:;e (1'7) Sl(td~_1d Ma!rlK~ --~dox DeproHlo~_(f!) 11f'ldlc~lo•• ol nydr~pny1,c vogetallon ac.d we~and nyarol<>gy mu,1 De pro.an,, uni us dl1turDed er prot>lcm~llc R,-itrlctlv. Uror (W pt111nll: Typ1·---------- 0•p!I\ (IM/\11~ _/ HydPIC Sell Pruenl? YU ~o Rtmu~•: HYDROLOGY I W•dtnd H~droJogy lndlo.olor11 Ptlrol(Y IOSkl!lQfl cmtotrn,trn Q{ 9Qt [09\ll'fd· Ch\Wh iM 1h11 ppp!x) _ SuttactW1t•rlM) _ High W•l1t hDlo [A2) _ .!a1u1lllon IAl) _ Wl1trMuk1(81) _ Water.S!tln~d Lnvn (B91 l•~copl MIJ';A ,, 2, .. A. end ~P) _ SallC11m(S11) _ Aqua lie ln~•rl•DNlt .. (B13) _ Hy<!rcgon S~llldt Odor (C1J Srrnrnl?() l!)dlCIIP/1119[ rrM• Coi'lll(rq' _ W•tor-Slal<Ud LH~ .. 189)(MLRA 1. 2. 4A, ond .. Bl _ Or•lnogo Fanern• (810] _ Ory•Su•""W•torht>le(C2) _ Satu,011on Via,c-1• on Aorlal lmoge•y IC9j _ .!odlme<'ll D•pod1 (62) _ Orl~ Dop,;,1H1 (B3) _ O•ldlzea Rhlto,pheru along living Rools (C3) _ Goomoiphlc Fo1rtlon (02) _ ,',ig1t Mal 01 C1u11 (B~I _ lroo 01pc,1M• lB$) _ Fruence or R•duc•d Iron (C~) _ Shallow Aqul11rd (03) _ surr,ct &011 cnic1<1 iee1 _ lllllnd•tlQf\ V11lbl• on Mtl1l lm1gltfy 181) 5_f"'rally V1g1t1tt<l Cone•~ Surlaet (9~) _ Rceen! Iron Redu<:tlOt\ In Tl~•<l so,11 (C6) _ S!unlod or SlroHed Pl1n11 JD1) (LRfl: Al _ Olhu (E,pla,n In R1m1r1<1) ~,.,a ·01111.'Ylllon•; _.,,...,. .,. Surfac1W1te1Pr1unt? Y .. _....-c_ "''--01pt~(lncnt1r '1 Wt!tr h~• PrHont? Yn __ "--D•pth(ln,:hn) ___ _ _ FAC.Neulr>I TUI 105) _ RaloedAnt Mound~(O~)(LRR Al _ Fro•l·HUVO H""1moc~, (071 I ~:~':~~"~~~1~~1i.,2•1 Yn __ "'--D1p1~(111cllt1) W•11•n<1 Hydrology f'rutnl? , .. ~' bi1crl~il»l'dtd-D1li (ttrum g1uge, mon,10!\ng we!I. nr,at pMl01, prov1ou, 1~p•ot1on•). ,1 avilllibl1· I Romarkl: us Army Corp, ol Englnor, Wo1lorn Mountiln•. Vali~y•. ,111<1 Co••I -Vor,lon 2 C ~i-t=. Project1Stto WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Vaney1, and Cout Region F:t.,Jd /:,f'l;tt:)/,,l Chy/County· /Zt,,vh _,/ Sunplng D•t•: lf ""Z, 7 .. :.-/ { P~& rry '5' 511tt;~ S1mpllng Point De ts"-I Apphc,n\/Owr,•r: tn.011ig11ar(•I ~J. S1tC1lon.T=1rHp,R1ng1 5:z...-i, T?'3M R,,"[E:... La/\<llorm {hlll1lop•. I Off Mt, etc.) Lacol fOliol (~nca¥e, C4rr,1x, min•J Slcp• i':'I,): __ Subregion ILRR)" Lot Long 01tvm: ---- So,I Map Unrl Nome: NWI i:IHtlnc111on: ------,,-- Al• clrnotk I hyd,~oi'" i:ond~lon, on th 1111, typli:a1711 !,me ol yHr? Yot __ "' __ (If /IC, Hpl1n In Rtmarll,.) / -"'• Yogola!lon --· Sao1 __ or H)'<!ratogy __ 1lgn1no1r1u, dl1(ur~d? Ar. ·N~m11 CirC11mt!lna1• PfO'"fl17 Yu_,/_ N ""' __ A1e Y•g•t•Uon __ So,1 __ or Hyd,olooy __ naluralty l)j'Otll1m1Ho? [II nHdod, ••plti'\ any in,.,.,.,. In R1mortt..) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling polnl locatfona, transects, Important featuru, etc, Hyoropny•ic Veg ol3Hcn Pr~••~I? v.. • Y••~No Y••~o--l•th•S•mpl..iA,.,. / Hydrlc Soll P,ounP W•ll•M Hydrolo,ly Pr.,.nt? Y••_..L No=== wllhln•Wollond? YH_L No __ _ ~- e,..vlv ....... ,:t-"'-f-, -~t'\-.. --.,I. t F ...,,__-ft _.,-l VEGETATION -Use sclen11flc namH of plants. Ab1olule Dcml_n•nl lr,<:1ic1tor ··1· Oo~ln1nc1 fHt wor'uhwt: ~ 1P1c,1:11u ~..ill..l!liUl~ Numbero[Oomln.nl9~du "'II --------Th1tN10BLFACW,orFAC. ~ (A) ' ------ '·-------------- • Tolal Co~•r Tolol Numb-er of Dom1i1nl Sp1~1 "'1J"Q11 All S!r,,11• Porcont or Dominant SpeoJH Th•! Aro OBI., FACW, or FAC: Prr1111l1nC, lndu work1httt: ____:l_ (BJ ...1J,__ ''""' ~-@R~M'Sfg~~i (P~r;r:C.. (-J :S-,,--F'""""' '. to CWY"l i-t. l.,...... ~ ')t,.t == ~ 1--'"'·'••I li=C•W•tcu0ct__ M1d!ln": t,y a ---------------0Bl1~d11 ---,a•---- _----------------------FACW1p1au ---,a•---- --------FAC 1p1c;l11 ---, h ------___ • Totol Cover ~1iu, ) ,. ,.,,,.,., f-,ze" A--"r .2..L F.A-<... ' ------,. ;--------------------. ------ '" ------" ------ 11:\loo't Vlar ;Stornrm (Pto1,1u: ----- ',> 8111 Grour.d in H,rb Slratum Remark•: us Arm1 Corp1 or Engl'luts ------___ .. Ta1aJCover ___ • Tol1f Covor FACU 1p1ctu ---, < • --- UPL 1pe<l1t ---""---- Co~ffll'\ Tot111: ---IAI ----1'1 Pl'llVl~MI Ind•~ • BIA• Hydrolll,ytlc Y1p1Uilon lndlo1tor1: _ \ • lhpld T"Hl f<>r Hyd~ph~0V1gl11i1Dn -~-Domln11r,coTHtl1>-SO% _ l-Provat,no-o fldiKll13.0' _ ~ • t.lOfphQ'°lll'-"I Ad1pt1Hon11 1 (f'ro'ildil 1uppol1lng dlUI In Rem.,.k1Dron111par1!e 1he1t) _ !-Wt!11n-dNon-VuC1.1l1rPl1n1,1 _ F'robllm1tlc Hy<!ropllyllc V1getl1lon' IEl,pi1ln) 11r,dlo1!on1 ol hydr~ 1a11 tl'>d wettlnd hydrtlloo;iy mul! t,e p,-•um. unlu1 dloturbetll• Duc1lp1lon: {boc1lb1 lo 1h1 c,pm nuded tD doe1am1nl !he lndlc1101 or confirm me 1bunu o! lndlc110,o.) Dtplh BoQm; Fnht(U ~ c,-,m,-1,,,,_1> _li....... CaW{mai;II ~ _1l:1l.L ....J.l!L _/k_ N1"'-2-/L_ ___ _ ----------- ---- ___,,__ __ _&-~-- ~ ------- --------- 'Tye,: C•Concfnl111tlon D•p1pll00n RM,,Reducod Malrl~ CS.,Covored ar Co•11d Sand Or•lno. 'Loc,llon PL~Poro Lln,09 M•ho'a1n, Hy<lrlo 9oll tnc1 ... 1.,,., lAPpll~bl1 lo all LIi.Ao, .;-nlu• othHwin no!M.) tndlc~to,, ror Probl1matlc Hydrlc Soll•': _Hlltoraol(A1J _ Hlotio Eplptd<on {A21 _ 8111C~Hlt11c!A'.I) _ Hydrogen SulMt (A~) _ Doploltd e,1c,w 0a,.-., S'"1tae (A11l _ Tl'lr,;t,;01<~Sun'1ae(A12) _ hr1C1yMuckyMlntr1l(S1) 9aMy a1,y1d_M~rt:< (S~) _ Sandy Redo~ 155) -S"lpp,,d M•tr~ (SB) _ Loamy Muc~y Mln•ral (F1) (u,epl t.lLRA 1) _ Loamy Gley<ld i,u,1,oc (F2J _ Oep11l1d '-la"lx (F3) _ R•do,: Ouk Sur!•<• (~5) ? D•p1etcd Dark surr,.,. (F71 Rodox Oepr101om iFB) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Rod ParoN Mtlerl1I (Tf21 _ Vo,y S~a1low 011k Surtace (Tf12) _ Olh•r (Exp11,n Jn R1ma11(J) '111dl<:11on ol hydroph)'IIC ~'"Q•l•!lc., ar,d w•U•nd hyd101o;n mu•1 be prounl ~nl1u d,o\uroed or probl•mallc. RO:ttik:ij~• Uy., (H p1.unt): TrP•·---------- DtPl"i (lncl'ln)' _j Hydrlc Soll Preunt? Y /. .. __ "' Rtm1r1<1: HYOROLOGY / w•tj•nd Hydrolo;y lndlc.11loi-1,; Pclmtcr /MIAAl"!J 1m101m,1m s, ROI Cl9Hlrss· Gfl\Kl ill !hot IPPIYI _ 9ur1ac1W•!U(A1) -Hlgn Wallf T•~· (,'.;2) _ St!~r1tlon (Al) -W111.rMtllll!B1) _ W'ltl<1r-Stoln<ld Lu~u (891 lUcopt t.lLII.J\ 1. l, 4A, tnd ~B) _ 5•~ Cruo( IB11) _ ,',.QUJ!I~ lrwor,obl•lo (013) _ Hydra;en Sulnd• Oda, (C1 I !ICS9nd10' l'l!llf"l9n 12 w mocr raa111<d 1 _ wa1er-~1ainM Lu~ .. (B9) IMLRA 1. 2, ~A. and ~B) _ Oroln1go PanorM (8101 _ Ory-S•uon wator T,nto 1c21 _ S1tunllon V,olbl• on Aeri1l 1maouy (C9J _ St<lmron! O•f'O•~• !B2) -Drift D•poall1 IB') _ Oxldlz•d Rhticoph•ru 11ano LMno Roat• IC3) _ Geomorpti1c Pao<llon (02) _ Prennco cl Redut•d Iron (C~J _ Algtl Mat Of CN,t (04) _ Iron 01po1~1 (B~J _ SurTKI Sell Cr,,tke (95) _ Recent Iron fhduellon In Tll•d So<l1 [CB) _ 91un1•~ er St,uood PlaMI (01) (LRR .O.) _ sn~llow Aqulla<d (DJ) _ FAC-N•~!ral Tosl(OS) _ RIIUO An! MoundJ (D~J(lRR A) _ Fro1Hiuv1 Hummock• (07) _ llll.lrKlatlon Vl11t11• fin Attltl lm1111ry (B1) _ Olher(Expl1ln In R•m.ri<OI _ Spar .. 1y Vtg1t1t1d Cono.avt Sur1•ct (BB) j Flaid ObH1~1Hone; Svrflltt Wttor Pr•11nr1 w1111 T1bl1 Prntnt1 / ~:ihnUcn. Prn•nt'I t 9~~-ID'.Jr~ YH t-lo .,.. Oepth(ln~") ---- '"--NO ""7 Ooplh(lnchH) ---:---c:;,~ VN 7 No= Qep(I, (lnchn): ..:....±7: W1t11nd l-lyd1olo11y PrHon11 '" ........-,,, OH,rlbe Recordiad Datt !llrtam g111Q•. m<M'\ttoOng well, :ierl~I p/lolo•, prevlou1 ln,pe•hon•). II av~l,bl•: / R1m1ili.i; US Army Corpo a! E~nuro Woolem Mountain,. ValltVO.. ~r\d Coa1t -Vor«on 2 0 ~!= Project/Silt-: Clty/Caw,ly; I~ I"-"__,,,. S•mpll11g Oat 1: ...., ,_ Applloan\/Owr,er Slll\1: ~ S1m~lng Point: b r° f:i !n•••hg•101[a) Secllon, Town,hlp. R•1111•· ~ Z..-='t rz 3 ...v, &KE:.. Landlo,m Ulillolap.,_ im-ao,, olc.): LocJI r111,t (-i:a••. ~n~1x, r\0!\1): Sia!>" !'It.): __ su~eiilon {LRRJ Lat: Long: o.,~m: ---- so,1 Mop UM Nome NW! ~aul/kirtton: _____ 7 __ A,, dlm,tlc I hyclt~cond,ll/11 till tl!e 1¥plcal for thla (lme af ye,11? '1&1 __ "' __ (II no, tieJ'•Jn Ir\ Rt1T1ork1.) ~ Ale \/tgo1s1lon __ So,1 __ or Hydrology _L oignlllcanttio dJ1lurlMd7 Ari 0 Norm11 Clteum1l1n,:a,• p,uent? YH _,/_ ""'' __ ~• Veg,1111,x, __ Son __ or Hy<llolagy __ n-alur1lly prob!om•U•1 Ill nt1d1d, expl•Jn ony 1n1w&t1 In A,m,,ks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map snowing nmp!lng point locatlon,, tnnsncts, Important r,uturea, etc, ••••"A Oo••••" Hydropriy1k V&~.'"""", •• H .. ,, Hyd11t Sod Prnoel? , .. __ "'--JI• th• S.mplld Aru Wllllln I W1H1nd? Welland Hyd,ology Pl!Hn\1 , .. __ "'--, .. __ "' , .. --"' liemarks. ,.,,.A. ,}'" ""'tt~ ,-/ -+,,..._ t,-r,-... ,ks) s·.u'\, ,...,.,. ~ ,- C ~vr,,-..4 ,{ VEGETATION-Un 1cl1ntlf!c n~mu. of plant• ,i.t,,otute -Oomln,ant Indicator nllllc1 u1 woifiii"HI: ~ (P101 ,110: ~ ~ Jli1IIL.. Numeo&r or QQmlnant Spt<:Hl1 t::11 .:, I ------TnatAJ100L,FA(;-ll.orFAC: __..!/JL.....,, !A) ' ------Total Numl:>1r of Oomltlant U- ---___ Sp,,dn "-cfou 1111 ~tra11: ---1---!BJ ------P,i1unl of Oomln•nt SpecM!a / ,.,.,..-- ___ ,. Tolal Cover Tn1tAJ10BL,FAr:N,orFJ>t:,: ___ ")_ (MS) SJ9il['9'§h!rMbSlr1!1Y~IPlo\J.a ~ l ~ ~ Prov1lt11C1!nduworkshHt ; va~y.:-· --,.; '"""-ef "'"""'"' l S ,~: d:!e-~ cS,, ------0BL1po,ciH ---"• ---- ,; ------fACWtp~tMr1 ___ ,2, ___ _ < --------------------FAC 1p,,ciu ---» • ---- ------FACU1p,,Q" ---"'----___ " To1•1 Cover ~ (PIOl!tZe. ) 1 'J.... /-~ S: ,...,,.,,,.,1-L Y'l: __ Ei!G, I.IPL 1p,,cl11 ---•.' ---- Co!Jrm Tot 111: ---(Al ----IOI ;--------------I Prevtk!Mt lf'l(lu ., BIA• ---Hydtophyllc V1g1taHon lndlcato": ------------------------/ _ 1-R•pldTnt fotHydtophytloV1g1t1llon --------1-'2-0ominanooru11,~!50"A ---------------____ J .p,..,..,,1,nc1 lndo~ 11 o.o' ----------------. -------- '°· ------"· ------ Wqgdy YID" Sl'ft\L/ffl {Plot 1IZ1' ---- '·=------ % Bare G,ro\lM m Horb Strotum Remarks· us Army Corp• or Englno11 ------ ---• TotalCwtr -- ---• Total co~u _ ~ • MQfphologi,:.r Ad1ptalloM1' (Prov\<11 •upportlfl!:I d1t1 In Roma,ks or on I upai-1\11h11tJ _ 5 • Wet11r,CI Non-Vucu!1r Pllnll' _ Prol:lltm1tlc H)'<lroptiytlcV&gMillon' (Expttln) 'lndjcatoi. or ~ydr~ ,o11,r,c1 Wllhod hydrotogy muot ti. p,eHnt un11n dl11urri.<:i o, pro~emt!lo. Hydrophy~c V")atltlon Pr• .. nt? / '"--,. __ Wut1m Mountain,, V1ll•)'"1, Ind CO Ht -Va,~on 2.0 SOIL Simplfr'ig Polnl: ---- Ptorttt DHcdliiiari"i fDu~rlbeto 111ii d•plh nud•d ti, doc:um,n( Iha Ind into, or c:i,nrtrm th• ab ii.;;;,. of lndlc:~t"'•-J °'"" ~ r,~1~tf<Mi .. ,--"J_ U!::l!!..3 '~'-~-- _ Bodm; Eururu ~===I ,.....;,. ;:~~ ~ Y9 B:;:••~;l;.ct/ ---------------------- ------------'Tl'Jl!" C•Conconlrltlon D•Qepl,Uon RMaRodu~ed Mairb! CS2Cov•redor Coa1od Sari<! Onln• r!ydrlo 8oll ll!di<:1111>r1: !Appil.::Oblt 10 •II L,:iR,, union 01h11WIII Mll<I,) _ Hlotoaot(A11 _ lbn<1yRodoxjS5) _ Hla!lo Eplptdon ("2) _ SlrlpPOd M•trbc (SS) _ Black Hlltlc IAJ) _ Loamy Muc~y Mloual (F1) { .. capt t•ll.l'IA 1) _ Hyr:l1"11"n Sulftde (A•) _ Loamy Gl~ytd t,1,11,11c (F21 _ D1pl1ted BtllM' Dar~ 5..-ltco (A11) _ D•pte!ed Matr1~ (F3) _ Thlclt Dirk SU!11C1 (A12) _ l'lodo~ D11k Surf2oe1 \Ft) _ &Indy Mueky Mlnl/11 (S1J -O•pteted Dark Sut1•c,r IF7) Sindy Gl•Y•d Mat~x-~~ _ Redox OepruslOnt_l_f'_!)_ 'Locallon PL~Pore Unlng M•Malrrx Jn41c.tor• !or Problom•lle H~d1lc Soll•': _ 2 cm Muell (A10/ _ Rtd P1r1n! Malctlfl (Tf:.l.J _ V•ry SllUiM Dar~ Surhco (TF12i _ ~Mer (E~pl1ln In Roma,~,) 'indicator, o! hydrophylSl v•11•1a11on ind wetland hydrolOQy nN11 be puunl, Ynlou dlo!urt>•d or 1"'._olllcma\lC. I 1t .. -1,rc.11v1 u~., (fpr, .. nt): Ty~:---------- Deptll(lncl'1n): Rom,11<,: J HydtlcSollPruen\1 Yu/ No HYOROLOOY j W•tl•l!d Hydrol<>i!Y lnd/,,.to": Primm lndlalQl'1 I ml Dim m 9fgo1 ro2lllrts1· stw?I< :MN m,t tesM 3,rroda'Y lndlG1tar1 I? or mm rs11 lrt91 _ SUf11c0Wtt1f(A1) _ High WIier T•blO ("2) _ h1u.-.11on (A3) _ W1111Mu~11!11) _ Sldlmoni O•J>O*llt 1112) _ DMd Dopot~a (Bl) _ AIQal Mat Of cru,1 (B~) _ Iron Oepe,t~t (II!) _ Surhotl lloll Cn,,;ka (BO! _ lm<n<l•tlon \111,tao or, Ae/111 l~ary {B1) S_eer11ly Vt11<11•1o<! Conotvt 9Uflact jlle) _ Wl1•r-9talned Luvu (1191 (uopt MLl'IA 1, 7, ~A, end "B) _ S0~Cru11JB11I _ Aquatic lnvert,r,,a1u(B1J) _ Hydrog,n Su111dt Odor (C1) _ W-.ler.S\alnld L&iVU (1191 {MLRA 1, 7, ~A, 1nd .. Ill _ Drtlna11c Pa~orn• (El10) _ Ory-9,aton W,,tor Ta1>111c21 _ S1turollon VltlCII• on ,',,ori,I 1rr.a~1ry (C9) _ Oxidized l'lhlzoopMu•• elono Llvln11 ,:loot, 1C:l) _ GoomorpNc Po1ttlon (D2) _ Pr•unco of Reducod 1,on IC~) _ SM•Uow Aqul131d (03) _ Re~•nt 1,on Roducilon In Tilled Soil (Ce) _ FAC-Noutral r .. 1 (O!J _ Stunted or Streeoad Planll (01) (LIU\ A) _ Ra,ooa Mt Maund, ID6) (LRlt A) _ Olh••(E~pltinlnR•morltl) _ Fr<><tt-HUYIHW!'lmo<:k•(D7) 11•1<1 o~ ... ~atlona: • / 9urtlla1 Wattr P11Hnl1 Yu __ Na ~tpth (ln~n): ---- W1t1r hb11 P1111nl7 Yoo No __ Oaplh(lnch•): ___ = Sl\UMIIM!n P!t .. nt7 Yu z NO --Dtpth {ln<hn): ~ ln!11udH capillary !f!na.1 y .. V Wtiland Hydrology Pru,nt7 "'-- I Duc1IO-R1coN1td Oi;fa (•lrnm gt~t, mool\Q~ng woll. Hriill photos, praviou, lnsp<.:tional, ,r ,wa,i.bd• I "'tmarkl: us Armv co,p1 of Enoir,or, w11101n Mountain,. Vall•r•. arnl Cout -Ve~,o-~ 2 0 December 14, 2011 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 360, Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 RE: Habitat Study-Fieldbrook Commons City of Renton, Washington swc Job #11-121 Dear Justin, Sewall Wetland Consultin , Inc. 27641 Covington Way SE #2 Covington, WA 98042 Phone: 253-859-0515 Fax: 253-852-4732 This letter is in reference to the City ofRenton's requirements for a Habitat Study for the Fieldbrook Commons project. The Fieldbrook Commons site is a 10.7 acre property on the east side of Benson Road South, and north of Cedar Avenue South (SE 172nd Street) in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the site consists of three abutting parcels (Parcels# 2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023) located in a portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. Typically a Habitat Study is required by the City when Critical Habitat as defined in the Code (RMC 4.03.050.K. l.a). Critical habitats are defined in Code as follows. a. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: i. Habitats associated with the documented presence of non-salmonid (see subsection L 1 of this Section and RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations, for salmonid species) species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority; and/or ii. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection M1 of this Section for classification criteria). b. Mapping: 0 N I-.... ca 1-1 ::c >< w ie /db rook Commons!# 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 201J Page2 i. Critical habitats are identified by lists, categories and definitions of species promulgated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Non- game Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011; in the Priority Habitat and Species Program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ii. Referenced inventories and maps are to be used as guides to the general location and extent of critical habitat. Critical habitat which is identified in subsection K1a of/his Section, but not shown on the referenced inventories and maps, are presumed to exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this Section. iii. The actual presence or absence of the criteria listed above, as determined by qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. c. Performance Standards: In addition to the general standards of subsection E of this Section, the following performance standards, subsections K2 to KS of this Section, apply to all non-exempt activities on sites containing critical habitat areas per subsection K 1 a of this Section. 2. Habitat Assessment Required: Based upon subsection K1 of/his Section, Applicability, the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-8-120D. In cases where a proposal is not likely to significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section. A review of the WDFW Priority Habiats Mapping was conducted for the project. This was detailed on Page 6 of our November 8, 2011 Critical Areas Report for the Fieldbrook Commons project and is reproduced as follows; 3.1.4 WDFW Priority Habitat Website Map According to the WDFW Priority Habitat Website with Public access layers activated, there is a wetland located along the east side of the site. ieldbrook Commons!# 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 2011 Page3 As shown above, WDFW has only identified a wetland (purple shading) along the east edge of the site. No stale or federally listed species are identified or known to use the site. The wetland has been rated using the City of Renton methodology and is rated as a Category 2 wetland. Our review of the site did not reveal any state or federally listed species on or near the site. Conclusion There is no "critical habitat" as defined by Code on or near the site. If you have any questions in regards to this report or need additional infom1ation, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 Sewall WeUand Consultin , Inc. December 14, 2011 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 361h Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 27641 CovingtonWaySE#2 Covington, WA 98042 RE: Supplemental Stream Study-Fieldbrook Commons City of Renton, Washington swc Job #11-121 Dear Justin, Phone:253-859-0515 c;,vx: 2~3-852-4732 or Rent PiAnn,nq O .. on . rv1s1on J/j,11 -., . ' " !U/2 This letter is in reference to the City ofRenton's requirements for a Supplemental Stream Study. Typically a Supplemental Stream Study is required for projects containing a stream within their limits, or within 100' of the study site. The Fieldbrook Commons site is a 10. 7 acre property on the east side of Benson Road South, and north of Cedar Avenue South (SE 172nd Street) in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the site consists of three abutting parcels (Parcels# 2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023) located in a portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. There are no streams on the site. As detailed on Page 8 of our November g•h, 2011 Critical Areas Report for the project, there is a portion of a wetland, identified as Wetland B in the Critical Areas Report, that extends onto the east side of the site. This wetland forms a portion of the headwaters for Soos Creek. The paragraph below is from Page 8 of the Critical Areas Report under Wetland B; Wetland B (flags Bl-B22-10,300sf on-site) consists of the western edge of a relatively large (@4-5 acres) located primarily off-site to the east. This wetland is known as a headwater wetland to Soos Creek, which forms further to the east of the site several hundred feet. T11is wetland is primarily forested although also contains a scrub-shrub component and a small portion (10%-20%) of seasonally standing water to the southeast of the site. Investigation into this wetland lo a distance of 100' east of the eastern site boundary revealed no stream channel. Although a stream is thought to form within this wetland, our investigation of the area over 100' to the east of the site revealed no stream channel. If there is a channel it is ..... N I- I-I m 1-1 :c >< w fleldbrook Commons!# I I -1 2 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December I 4, 20 JI Page2 > I 00' from the property boundary and the largest stream buffer that the City of Renton uses (100') would not encroach onto the property. If you have any questions in regards to this report or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 City of Renton Planning Division FEB 2 9 20\2 Technical Memorandum 70230 NE Points Drive Suite400 JGrkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Stephanie Smith, Wetland Biologist February 29, 2012 Subject: Critical Areas Review ofFieldbrook Commons Project Documents Project No.: 31989B As requested by the City of Renton (City), Otak biologists conducted a site visit and reviewed documents provided by the City related to the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project for compliance with City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinances. The project proposes to construct a 161 unit Planned Use Development (PUD) with associated improvements on an approximately 10.7 acre site, located in Renton (City of Renton LUA12-001). The west side of the project site is bounded by Benson Road South (also called 108"' Avenue SE) and the south side is bounded by Cedar Avenue S (also called SE 172"' Street). A vicinity map is located at the end of this document. Introduction A wetland delineation was conducted in April 2011 by the applicant's biologist that identified a total of six wetlands on the project site, which include: three Category II wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and D) and three Category III wetlands (Wetlands C, E, and F). The project site consists of three parcels (2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023). Two of the parcels create a long, narrow corridor east to west and the third parcel extends to the south to make the project site somewhat "T" shaped. The smallest parcel (2923059168), in the northwest corner of the project area, previously had a fire station on the property. The building has since been demolished, leaving the property vacant but for paved parking areas, gravel, and overgrown landscaping. The other two parcels that make up the project area are forested with some evidence of past use, including dilapidated buildings and adjacent. mine tailings. The project proposes to fill three wetlands ( approximately 9,334 square feet) and provide compensatory mitigation onsite by creating approximately 25,508 square feet of wetland habitat .. The proposed wetland mitigation area is located within the buffers of the existing wetlands on site that are not proposed to be filled. This memorandum outlines general background information, the results of the site visit, findings of the review, and recommendations. K \project\31900\31989B \Reports \Fieldbrook ReYiev.·.doo: N N 1- M cc M :r: >< w Vanessa Dolbee, Semor Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 2 Review oJFieldbrook Commons Project Documents Febmary 29, 2012 Documents Reviewed • Critical Areas Report ( dated November 8, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Includes the Wetland Delineation Report and the Mitigation Memo; • • Supplemental Stream Study (dated December 14, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Habitat Study (dated December 14, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Sheet Pl. I Ficldbrook Commons Preliminary Site Plan (dated December 29, 2011) by Riebe & Associates, Inc. Architecture and Planning (site plan); Fieldbrook Commons Wetland Delineation Map (dated December 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. (wetland map); Fieldbrook Commons Concept Delineation Map ( dated December 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. (wetland mitigation map); and Boundary and Topographic Survey for Fieldbrook (dated December 27, 2011) by Concept Engineering, Inc. Background Information Sources • City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) accessed from: • • http:/ /www.codepublishing.com/wa/ renton/ (Referred to in this memorandum as RMC) The following maps were accessed from the City's website: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=29885 (Referred to in this memorandum as City G4. 0 maps) • City of Renton Aquifer Protection Map City of Renton Coal Mine Hazard Map City of Renton Erosion Hazard Map • City of Renton Flood Hazard Map • City of Renton Landslide Hazard Map • City of Renton Steep Slopes Map King County iMAP accessed from: http: I /www.kingcountn;:ov /operations /gis /Maps /iMAP .aspx (Referred to in this memorandum as King County iMAP). Background Information According to City CAO maps and King County iMAP, the following are mapped on the site: • A portion of one Category II wetland (Wetland B); • Coal Mine Hazard area; and • Steep slopes (may be just off site) . General Site Assessment Comments Otak biologists, Suzanne Anderson and Stephanie Smith, conducted a site visit on February 8, 2012 to assess general site and buffer conditions and to verify the delineated boundaries and ratings of K \project\31900\31989B \Reports\Fieldbrook Rcview.doa: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 3 &view o(Fieldbrook Commons Pro;ect Documents February 29, 2012 Wetlands A tl1rough F. The western and southern portions of the project area are generally flat, while the eastern section of the project area slopes down to the east. Just southeast of the project site there is a large hill with steep slopes that is a result of past mining activities, some of which may have taken place on the project site. The site is predominately forested, dominated by deciduous species including mature black cottonwoods (Popu!us ba!samifera spp. trichocarpa), red alder (A/nus rubra), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifo!ia), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyi!um), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and Douglas fir (Pseuck!tsuga menziesiz). Dominant understory species onsite include Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), beaked hazelnut (Cory/us conzuta), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), salmonberry (Rubus spectabi!is), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifo!ia), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). There are some areas of the site with infestations of non-native invasive species, particularly Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), holly (Ilex aquifo!ium), and yellow arch-angel (Lamiastrum galeobck!lon). All of these infestations are near the project site edges, outside of the wetlands and mostly located outside of the buffer areas. I. Findings I .a. Verification of Wetland Boundaries and Ratings I.a. I. We concur with the wetland delineation report that Wetlands A, B, and Dare all rated as Category II (RMC 4.3-0SOMl.a.ii), with SO-foot buffers (RMC 4-3-0SOM6.c), and Wetlands C, E, and Fare all rated as Category III (RMC 4.3-0SOM!.a.ii), with 25-foot buffers. I .a.2. We concur with the locations of the wetland boundary flags of Wetlands A through F. I .a.3. During Otak's site visit a wetland was observed on the east side of the parcel that extends to the south (parcel 2923059023). It is likely that this wetland is a result of past mining activities as it is a long, linear feature adjacent to a very tall and steep-sided hill (tailings). The wetland was not mentioned in the wetland delineation report, nor has it been assessed for its rating and required buffer width. The eastern portion of this wetland may be connected to Wetland B. I .b. Critical Areas Report I .b. I. While each wetland was categorized in the report, the author does not state which criteria is being met for the wetland to receive this category. The entire City category definition is pasted into the repott without justification. I .b.2. The function assessment of existing wetland and buffer functions and values is not supported by a recognized function assessment tool e.g. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (htt;p://www.eq.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pd!). K.: \project\31900\31989B \Reports \Fieldbrook Re-iew.doa: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Rento11 Community and Economic Development Page 4 &view ofFie!dbrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 I .c. Maps I .c. I. The topographic contours and many site descriptions are not legible on the wetland delineation or wetland concept maps and scale bars are not provided on all maps. I .c.2. Maps indicate that there is a Coal Mine Hazard Line at the south end of the southern parcel (parcel #2923059023). City critical areas maps indicate that the Coal Mine Hazard risk is unknown. I .c.3. There are slight discrepancies between the Concept Delineation Map and the Preliminary Site Plan Map. these discrepancies include: • The buffer to be created on the west side of\Vetland B (the northwestern lobe) is smaller on the Preliminary Site Plan Map. • It is difficult to interpret whether there are differences between the design of the storm pond on the Delineation Concept and Preliminary Site Plan Maps. I .d. Encroachment in Existing Wetland B Buffer I .d. I. According to site conditions and the wetland delineation map, the north/ central section of the existing buffer for Wetland B appears to include an intrusion from a portion of the neighbor's back yard. If the buffer is being intruded upon from the neighboring yard, the applicant will need to restore the degraded portion of the buffer and include new fencing to prevent future intrusion. 1.e. Tree Retention I.e. I. The proposed project does not address the requirements of tree retention as outlined in RMC 4-4-130. I .f. Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets 1.f.1. The mitigation memo and associated plan sheets constitutes a conceptual mitigation plan. I .f.2. The project proposes to mitigate for the fill of existing wetlands D, E, and F by removing existing high functioning wetland buffers in order to create additional wetland. Wetland Buffer requirements per RMC 4-3-050M6.a.iii states "All required wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition." I .f.3. The mitigation memo lacks many elements required by RMC 4-8-120D.23 and RMC 4- 3-0SOM. The most important lacking elements are: 1.f.3.1. Native Growth Protection Areas: Requirements for placement of wetlands and buffers into a Native Gro"w"th Protection Area (NGPA) (RMC 4-3-050E4 and 4-3- 050M7); as well as, specifications for NGPA signs, fencing, maintenance, and maintenance covenants (RMC 4-3-050E4); I .f.3.2. Assessment and Comparison: Requirements to provide an assessment and K \projecr\31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Review.docx. Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 5 Review ofFieldbrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 comparison of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using an approved methodology, e.g. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (http:/lw,,w.ec;y.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pd!), to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis (RMC 4-3-0SOMl 1.d). I .f.3.3. Protecting Buffer Functions: Specifications for locating and directing lighting outside of and away from wetland and buffer areas (RMC 4-3-050M6.c.ii.b). I .f.3.4. Minimization: Requirements for minimizing wetland and buffer impacts is not addressed (RMC 4-8-120D23.i); I .f.3.5. Hydrology: There is no information to determine whether there will be sufficient hydrology to establish and maintain wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils at the proposed elevations within the wetland creation area. There is no evidence to support the assumption that groundwater elevations in the wetland creation area will be the same as in the existing wetlands. In the wetland creation area between Wetlands A and C, there is an approximate 2-foot difference in elevation and in the wetland creation area on the west side of Wetland B there is generally a 4-foot difference, with as much as a 6-foot difference in elevation. • There is no information that determines how the construction of the berm proposed between the combined Wetlands A and C will prevent water in this larger, combined wetland from flowing out to Wetland B. There is no information to determine that excavating adjacent to Wetland B (Soos Creek headwaters) will not harm and/ or alter the existing wetland and stream hydrology and vegetation. I .f.3.6. Proposed Grasses: The specified planting of grass seeds in all disturbed portions of the buffer and created wetland. Grass has been shown to compete with and inhibit growth of installed woody plants, and tall grass can hide installed plants making them more difficult to locate during monitoring visits, and increase the likelihood of damage during maintenance activities. I .f.3.7. Performance Standards: adequate performance standards are not addressed and should be included to meet RMC 4-8-120D23 and those included in the Recommendations section below. I .f.3.8. Trails: The proposed trail will require significant grading adjacent to created wetlands, therefore the new buffers adjacent to trail (west of wetland B and east of wetlands A and C) will be very steep and will not provide the same functions as the current buffers (even once the forest grows back). • The trail is located through the center of the restored (proposed) buffer between Wetlands A and C and Wetland B. Trails are permitted in critical area buffers when they are located in the outer 25-percent of the buffer (RMC 4-3- 050C7.a.i(2)). K \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Review.docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 6 Review o[Fie!dbrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 J .f.3.9. Grading: The proposed extent of clearing/ grading in the wetland mitigation buffer area is not shown on the phins, and the mitigation memo does not demonstrate that the proposed clearing/ grading in the buffers is the minimum necessary for the project (RMC 4--8-120D.7 Definitions). I .f.3. I 0. Storm Pond: The mitigation memo and plan sheets lack sufficient information to determine whether the stormwater pond proposed in the wetLind buffer is an exempt activity pursuant to RMC 4--3-050C7.a.ii and meets the Wetland Protection Guidelines of the City's Surface Water Design Manual. Specific information that is Licking or cannot be confirmed because of the quality of drawings includes: • The outside of the stormwater pond berms cannot be counted as buffer. The berms have to be counted as impact or not count as addition. • It is unclear if there is an outlet from the pond and if so, where the water outlets to. • It is assumed that the plans suggest grading into the existing buffer in order to construct the berm around the stormwater pond. Grading information and proposed slopes are not included on the drawings. I .f.3.11. Required Permits: No documentation is provided that Ecology and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will permit the filling of WetLinds D, E, or F. The USACE will have to decide whether these wetlands are jurisdictional. • Excavating adjacent to Wetland Bis likely to require a USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP), and may also require a Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA) from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). • If the Corps also finds that either Wetlands A or C are jurisdictional, a USACE NWP may also he required for these actions. I .f.3.12. Long Term Monitoring: The mitigation memo specifies five years of monitoring and maintenance which is sufficient per RMC. However, the possible requirement for State (Ecology or WDFW) or Federal (USACE) permits may require additional years of monitoring. Joint Guidance from Ecology, USA CE, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends monitoring and maintaining mitigation areas with forested communities for a minimum of ten years (littp://www.ec.y.wa.gov/biblio/060601 la.html). l.f.3. 13. Final Delineation: The mitigation memo does not include provisions for delineating the created wetLind area at the end of the monitoring period to verify whether the required compensation is achieved. I .g. Buffer Averaging I .g. I. The mitigation memo does not specify how the areas of buffer addition and the remaining-reduced buffer portions will provide full functions, and how they will achieve no net loss of functions by buffer averaging (RMC 4--3-050M6.e and f.). I .g.2. The southern portion of the created wethind, adjacent to Wetland B appears to come K\pro;ect \31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Review.doa: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 7 Rtview ofFie!dbrook Commons Project Documents Febmary 29, 2012 too close to the property line. Wetland creation cannot impose buffers on adjoining properties. I .g.3. Areas that are proposed for buffer addition must provide like-functions to buffer that is being destroyed. The following buffer addition areas will need to be included in a restoration plan: • • Any buffer that will be added as proposed will either be disturbed by construction or installation of the mitigation plan The buffer addition area near the SE corner of the project area (where the proposed trail ends) primarily consists of a fill plateau (from past mining activities) and is heavily dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Proposed buffer addition on the northwest side of Wetland B. Currently this section contains a few trees, but is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and includes an intrusion from a neighboring yard. Additionally, the narrow rectangular portion (shown on Delineation Concept Map) of the addition (furthest west) will not provide adequate buffer functions as it will be sandwiched between neighboring fences and the proposed parking lot 2. Recommendations 2.a. Offsite Wetlands: According to the RMC (4--3-050M3.a.i), "The applicant shall be required to conduct a study to determine the classification of the wetland if the subject property or project area is within one hundred feet of a wetland even if the wetland is not located on the subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in questions or its buffer." If any portion of the wetland or buffer is located onsite, the site plans will need to be revised accordingly. 2.b. Wetland and Buffer Functions: provide an assessment and comparison of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using the Ecology methodology (bnp://www.ec_y.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pdf) to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation 'will achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis (RMC 4-3- 0SOMl 1.d). Provide a table that compares existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values, such as that provided in the above mentioned methodology. 2.c. Maps: Future maps submitted should be printed at the appropriate scale and all contours and map notes should be legible. Provide appropriate scale bars on all maps. 2.d. Wetland B Buffer Encroachment: If the buffer is being intruded upon from the neighboring yard, the applicant will need to restore the degraded portion of the buffer and include new fencing to prevent future intrusion. 2.e. Tree Retention: 2.e.1. Per RMC 4-4--130 tree removal is an allowed activity under certain circumstances. K:\project\31900\31989B\Reports\Fieldbrook Re"View.docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 8 Review ofFie!dbrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 However, prohibited activities include tree removal from critical areas, including wetlands and their buffers ( 4-4-130D3). This chapter of the RMC also requires a tree removal and land clearing plan when a land development is submitted (4-4--130H2). 2.f. Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets: 2.f. I. Revise the mitigation memo and mitigation plan sheets to contain all of the elements required by RMC 4-3-0SOM and 4--8-120D23, and address the items listed in Section I .f above. 2.f.2. Revise the mitigation memo and mitigation plan sbeets to retain the existing wetland buffers in their natural condition (RMC 4-3-0SOM6.a.iii). The majority of buffers associated with Wetlands A, B, and C should not be changed from established, functional, mature forest in order to create new wetland. 2.f.3. Monitor Groundwater: If the revised wetland mitigation plan proposes wetland creation on-site, monitor the existing groundwater regime inside, and in the vicinity of, the proposed wetland creation area to inform the design and ensure a greater likelihood of successfully establishing wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. Groundwater levels at the proposed created wetland elevations should be monitored according to guidance from the USACE: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ elpubs /pdf /tnwrap00-2.pdf; http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wrap /pdf I tnwrapOS-2.pdf; and hrq:,://www.bwsr.state.mn. us /wetlands /wca/Water-Tahle-M-Design.pdf . If berms are proposed to contain water in created wetlands, provide studies and construction plans regarding how the berm will function to retain water. If Wetland Bis expanded, a study will be required to determine how the expanded wetland will NOT impact the hydrology and vegetation of the existing wetland and associated stream. 2.f.4. Grass Seed: Remove provisions to plant grass seeds in the wetland mitigation area and buffer, and in disturbed/ enhanced portions of the wetland buffers. Include provisions to apply and maintain a minimum of 6 inches of arborist mulch (or approved equivalent) to entire planting areas where native woody species are installed. 2.f.5. Performance Standards: Expand the performance standards to include: • percent survival is only necessary for Years 1 and 2; • only installed plants can be counted towards satisfying the survival performance standards; • percent cover performance standards for native woody species (including both installed and desirable native volunteers) and native ground cover for Years 3 through 10; species diversity performance standards for woody species for all 10 Years (native volunteers can be counted toward this performance standard); and K \project\31900 \31989B \Reports \Ficldbrook Review .doo: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 9 Review oJFieidhrook Commons Project Documents Febrnary 29, 2012 provisions to incorporate 4 to 6 inches of compost into the upper 12 inches of all graded portions of the wetland creation area; permanent monitoring plots that reasonably represent the plant communities to be established as well as the size of the mitigation monitoring area. All four comers of each plot should be staked with metal fence posts or tall re-bar; and permanent photo points should also be established that represent the mitigation area. 2.f.6. Trails: the proposed trails in the mitigation wetland buffers must conform with RMC 4- 3-050C7.a.i(2)., and the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the proposed trails will not degrade wetland or buffer functions and values. 2.f.7. Grading Plans: provide clearing/ grading plans in the wetland mitigation area that demonstrates the proposed clearing/ grading in the buffers is the minimum necessary for the project (RMC 4-8-120D7). 2.f.8. Storm Pond: Provide detailed plans regarding the storm water pond. Information that specifically needs to be included: proposed outlet location and flow rate; • specifications regarding emergency overflow • information regarding how the adjacent wetlands and buffers will be protected from potential impacts regarding the outlet location(s); and • provide a planting plan for the storm water pond. The target community should be similar to the existing vegetation onsite. 2.f.9. Permits: Provide documentation regarding the required permits from State and Federal agencies including Ecology, USACE, and WDFW. 2.f. I 0. Long Term Monitoring: Provide for ten years of monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation area, including the entire wetland mitigation buffer. • To be consistent with guidance from the USA CE and Ecology, Section 5 Monitoring Program should specify that Year 1 vegetation monitoring will occur in the at the end of growing season after the plants have been installed for at least one calendar year. • At a minimum, monitoring should occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10. • Include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the wetland creation area from March through May in piezometers per guidance from USACE (htt_p: // el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ elpubs /pdf/ tnwrap00-2.pdf ). 2.g. Buffers: 2.g. I. City code requires impacts to critical areas and their buffers be avoided, minimized, restored or compensated (RMC 4-3-0SOMS). Because avoiding all impacts does not appear possible, these impacts (permanent and temporary) must be MINIMIZED. Extensive proposed grading in the existing buffers does not minimize impact to these K: \project\31900\31989B \Reports \Fieldbrook Re"View.docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 10 Review ojFieldbrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 critical areas. In order to minimize impacts: • • Do not remove the existing functional wetland buffer in order to create new wetland; Retaining walls should be used adjacent to proposed trails, the storm water pond, and any other area where extensive grading would otherwise impact the buffer; and Buffer slopes should not be any steeper than they are under existing conditions . 2.g.2. At a minimum, all disturbed and invasive-dominated buffer additions, as well as the areas designated as "beffer restoration for temporary impact.I' have to have an enhancement plan that includes (at a minimum): invasive removal; installation of appropriate native trees and shrubs; performance standards Oess than 10% invasive cover, at least 80% survival for the first 2 years, reasonable % desirable woody cover, reasonable diversity of woody species); and monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans. 2.h. Other Information: • The Coal Mine Hazard Line needs to be addressed by the appropriate professional. K.: \project \31900 \319 89B \Rep::irts \Fieldbrook Review .docx ........__ ''~oomrnu~~i,", ,:\J/?c-Sewall Wetland Consu1t·1ng, Inc. ~ •· .. -~ '-'-----'ZJ,=64:c.1:.:Co=vin::....gton-=..:W=a==yS:=E::#.::2=--===Pho=ne:=™59--0San . .:.::=l'-5- March 16, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Covington WA 9ID12 Fax:253-852-4732 RE: F ieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response swc Job#l 1-121 Dear Vanessa, I have reviewed the OTAK February 29, 2012, "Critical Areas Review ofFieldbrook Commons" letter. The following is our response to the Recommendations listed starting on Page 7 of the OT AK memo; 2.a. Offsite \\'etlands: According to the R.\lC (4-3-0Sll:\Ll.a.i), "The app/icanl shall be required lo conduc/ a stuc~v lo de/ermine !he classification of the wetland if !he subjec/ property or projecr area is within one hundredfeet of a ire/land even if !he wetland is not located on !he subject properly bu/ ii is de/ermined thal alteralions of the subjec/ properly are likely lo impacl !he wetland in queslions or its buffer." lf any portion of the ,verland or buffer is located onsite, the site plans will need to be n".\'ised accnrdingly. As requested, we investigated the off-site wetland area identified by OTAK. It appears to be a linear extension of Wetland B. We measured the distance of this wetland to the eastern property line of the site and it was 55'. As this appears to be a part of Wetland B, this would also be a Category 2 wetland with a 50' buffer. This buffer would not extend onto the site. 2.b. \\'erland and Buffer Functions: proYide an assessment and comp:1.rison of e:-:isting J.nd proposed wetland and buffer functions and Yalues using the Ecology methodology 0mp://w,vw.en·.wa.gm-/pubs/080o0ll'J.pdf) tu demonstrate that the proposed mitigation \Vill achicn: functional equiYalency or in1pnffernent on a per function basis (R~1C 4-3- 0511,\!11.d). Pnwide a table that compares exisrmg and proposed \\'ethncl and buffer functions and Yaluesi such as that pro\·ided in the aboYe 111entioneJ n1ethodology. M N I- I-I a:i t-1 ::c >< w 0 ieldbmok Commons/11-121 Sewall Weiland Consul!ing, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 2 of 18 2.c. ,\L1ps: Fi ... nurt· m,tp~ submitted sli()uld he printed Jr rhe appr()pnare scdc ;ind all C<.ll1t()ur:-; and m.,1p nort:-:. sh<Juld hl~ legible. Pr()Yidc ,1ppn)pri:uc :-.cale h;;r::. on all nups. Maps contain scales and notes are legible in the copies provided to the City. 2.d. \\'edand B Buffer 1-:ncroschrnent: If the buffer is being intruded upon from the neighboring yard, the applicant wil.l nLc·d to restore the degraded poniun nf the buffer and include new fencing to preYent future intrusion. This area will be restored by removing the fence and replanting with native trees and shrubs. 2.e. Tree Retention: 2.e.1. Per Ri\!C 4-4-LlO tree rem,wal is an sllowed actiYitY under certain circumstances. Hown·er, prohibited activities include trct'. 1-cn1(ffal from critical areas, including wetlands and their buffers (4-4-1300.'l). This chapter of the ~\JC also requires a tree rernoYal and land clcming plan when a lanJ Je,elopment is submitted (4-4-13flH2). It is impossible to fill any wetland that has trees and not remove them. Trees within the filled wetland will be removed. However, the proposed mitigation plantings replaces these trees with many more trees than will be removed. The areas of clearing within existing buffer of Wetland A for expansion of the wetland will also have trees removed. However, all of the new wetland and buffer will be planted with a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. 2.f. :\litigation ~Icmo and i\1itigation Plan Sheets: 2.f.1. Re,·ise the mitigation memo and mitigation pL1.n sheets to. contain all of the elements required b,-RMC 4-3-liSO.i\! and 4-8-12CID23, and address the items listed in Section 1.f aboYe. The following are the sections under l.f referred to; 1.f.1. The micig-,Hion rnen10 and associated plan sheets constitutes a conceptual mitigation plan. 1.f.2. The project proposes to n1itigate for the fill of existing wetlands D, E, anJ F by rernoYing existing high functioning wetland buffers in orJer to creme additional wetland. \X'etland Buffer requirements per Ri\!C 4-3-0'ilti\16.a.iii ststcs "All required 11'1!//cmd huffer zones shall be relained in !heir nalural condilion." The revised mitigation plan will not impact the buffer of Wetland B which is high functioning. Instead the new plan proposed creating wetland between Wetlands A and C and converting moderate function buffer to wetland, and then move the buffer to the edge of the newly created wetland. No loss in buffer function will occur as the same 50' buffer will be utilized on the new wetland creation area. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 3 of 18 1.f.3. Tl1l' mirigarion memo lack, mam elements l't<.Ju,red b1 R\IC 4 8-I 211D.2.'l ,111d Rill(: 4-J-l):1();\J. The mo~r important lac'....;.ing elemtnts are: 1.f.3.1. :\ati\ e (;rowrh Prorection :-\n:·a~: Re(F.1iremt·nr;-; ft>r phi.cement of wetlands anJ buffers into :c1 T\,111\'e e_;rowth Protection ,.\rea (.l'\GPA) (R,\IC 4-3-05llE4 and 4-3-03lli\17); as well as, specifications for NCI\.\ signs, fencing, maintcnance1 and maintenance un-enants (Ri\1C 4-3-050E4); The final mitigation plan will depict NGPA areas as well as specific locations of signs and fencing. 1.f.3.2 .. --\ssessment and Comparison: Requirements to pruYide an assessment and comparison of existing :;inJ proposed wetland and buffer functions and Yalues using an approved methodology to demonstr:ne that the propo.seJ n1itiga6on \\·ill achieYe functional Using the W ADOE Wetland rating systems which is based upon 3 major recognized wetland functions, Wetland D scored a total of33 points, indicating a Category 3 wetland which also indicates low-moderate overall functional value. Wetlands E & F scored 25 and 29 points, respectively. This indicates low function Category 4 wetlands. As seen in Table I below, a substantial functional lift will be attained from the connection of Wetlands A and C with 25,508sf of additional wetland over the existing functions of the proposed fill wetlands. Table 1. Functional C omuarison of imuact wetlands and urouosed miti ation Wetland Area Flood Species Water Hydrologic Habitat Storage Richness Qual. Function Function cauacitv Function WetlandD 767Jsf 3800cuti 5 svecies 12vts 8vts l 3vts Wetland£ 68sf 34cuti 2 svecies llvts 4vts JOvts WetlandF J 59Jsf 500cuti 5 svecies JOvts 8vts llvts Pronosed 25508sf 7600cuft 15 soecies 24ots 20ots 21ots Category 3 4 4 2 Functional +16178sf +3266cuft +8spccies* +12pts +12pts avg +9pts +I Lilt av" ave: *only 7 different species were found (excluding exotic/invasives) in Wetlands D,E &F The newly created wetland will connect to existing Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands A and C) and provide enough lift that this wetland will now be considered a Category 2 wetland under the W ADOE rating system. This is a substantial lift in function, surface water storage and species richness over the proposed low value Category 3 and 4 fill wetlands. Catee:orv 'ieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sevi,·all Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 4 ofl8 1.f.3.3. Prottcring Huffc:-r Funct.iun< Specificn10ns f()r locating ,rnd din:ctinµ-lightin,L; outside of and away fr(Jrn \Yetland :1nd buffer areas (RJ\JC 4-.)-ll.:;{),\l(u~.11.h). This will be noted on site plans for portions of the development abutting the wetland and buffer areas. 1.f.3.4. 1\linimization: Requiren1ents for minjmizing wetland and buffer impacts is not addressed (RMC 4-8-12CID2.1.i); 1.f.3.5. Hnlrology: There is no information to determine whether there will be sufficient hwlrolog,· to establish and maintain wetland h1·drolog1·, h,·drophYtic yegetation, and hydric soils at the propuscd clcntions within the \\'etland creation area. • There is no eYidence to support the assun1ption that groundwater eleYations 111 the wetland creation area will be the same as in the:: ·txi:-;ring \\Ttbnds. In the wetland creation area bet\\'een \X'edands ~\ and C, there is an approximate 2-fnot difference jn eleYation and in the \"Fecland creation area on the weq siJe of \'(etland B there ls generally a 4-foot difference, witl1 as much as a 6-foot difference in ele,·ation. Currently we are monitoring groundwater within 6 wells within the new proposed wetland creation area between wetlands A and C. Current readings indicate groundwater is at a depth from 16"-28" below the surface. We will continue to monitor these points into April to develop an appropriate grading plan to create wetland conditions within the mi ti gati on area. The 2' elevation difference between Wetlands A & C will be considered when we prepare a final grading plan based upon groundwater elevations. Its possible that a small portion of the created wetland may have slope wetland characteristics. We have employed this type of grading in several wetland mitigation projects successfully. However, this will depend upon our findings of our hydrology monitoring which is currently being conducted. • There i~ no information that detern1ines hrnv the construction of the berm proposed between the combined Wetlands,,\ and C will pre,enr water in this larger, combined wetland fron1 flo\,-ing out to \\'etland 13. The use of a berm in this area if used, will be constructed of a soil material that will be an impediment to water passing through the berm through the use of a barrier such as clay. • There is no inform.;:i,tion to determine that excaYating adjacent to \x.'etland B (Soo~ Creek headwaters) \\·ill nor harm and/ or alter the existing wetland and strean1 hydrolof-,ry and ,·egetanon. No impacts or excavation in the area of Wetland Bare proposed at this time. •ieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 5 of 18 1.f.3.6. Proposed CL1~st:s: The :-:pccified planting ()f gr;i~s seeds in ciil disturlxd poninn:-uf the buffer and cn.-,ated wetland. (;rass has been sho\\·11 to c01r1pcH~ with :ind inhihir gruwth of installed woody pbnt:-:, and ral] grass can hide insrnlled plants making them more difficult to locate during monitoring Yisiti:;., and increase the likebhood of damage:' during maintenance actiYities. Grass see will be eliminated from the planting plan. Use of chips or mulch will be utilized instead. 2.f.6. Trails: the proposed trails in the mitigation wetland buffers must conform with l~\!C: 4-3-05CIC:7.a.i(2)., and the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the proposed traib will not degrade wetland or buffer functions and Yalue.s. The trail was a requested by the City. It has been removed from the plan so there will be no trail impacts. 2.f.7. Grading Pbns: pruYide clearing/grading plans in the wetland mitigation area that demon~trates the proposed clearing/grading in the buffers is the minimum necessary for the project (RJ\!C 4-8-12[1D7). The plan has been revised to eliminate any connection to Wetland B. The plan will connect Wetlands A and C through the minimum grading required for the required wetland creation area. This will be based upon the results of our hydrology monitoring which started March 12, 2012. When we have sufficient early growing season hydrology data the grading plans for the mitigation area will be prepared. We anticipate that to be near the end of April-middle of May. 2.f.8. Storm Pond: Pro,·ide detailed plans regarding the storm water pond. Information that specificalh" needs to be included: • proposed outkt location and flnw rnte; • spc.cifi.cations regarding en1ergency OYerflO\\s • inforn1arion regarJing hcnv the adjacent \i:etlands and buffers \"\·ill be protected from potential impacts regarding the outlet location(s); and • proYidc a planting pbn for the storm water pond. The target community should be si1nilar to the existing \·cgeratiun unsitc. The storm pond has been eliminated from the project and a buried vault will be utilized outside the wetland and associated buffers. 2.f.9. Permits: PruYide Jocumentmion regarding the required permits fn>m State anJ Federal agencies including Ecolog,·, l'S,\CE, and \\'DF\\. 'ieldbrook Commons!'J l -121 uewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 6 of 18 When the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we can then prepare a Final Detailed Plan which would be suitable for submittal for a Nationwide Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to W ADOE for 410 Water quality Certification. It is premature to submit for these permits at this time as the required documents (Final mitigation plan and reports) have not been prepared. 2.f.10. Long Term J\1onitoring: Pnn-ide for ten years of monitoring and n1aintcnancc of the mitigacion area, including the en6re \Vetland rni6gatiun buffer. •Tobe consistent with guidance from the US.A.CE and Ecology, Section 5 .\lonitoring Program should specit\ that Year l vegetation monitoring will occur in the at the end of growing season after the plants ha\'e been installed for at least one calendar year. • At a mmimun1, monitoring should occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10. • Include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the \1·etland creation area frurn ,\larch through i\Ia,· in piezorneters per guidance from l'S,\CE Q,ttp:/ / elerdc.usace.anm·.mil/ elpubs/ pdf / tnwrap00-2.pdf ). City of Renton Code requires monitoring and bonding of a wetland mitigation project for five years. Although it is likely that the Corps and W ADOE may require 10 years of monitoring, the plan to be submitted to the City will meet the City Code of 5 years of monitoring. Hydrology monitoring of the creation area will be a component. 2.g. Buffers: 2.g.1. Cit\' code reyuires impacts to critical areas and their buffers be aYoided, minimized, restored ur compensated (R.\!C 4-.1-0511:\18). Because aYoiding all impacts does nut appear possible, these impacts (permanent and temporan·) must be MINll\tIZED. Extcnsi,·e proposed grading in the existing buffers does not minimize impact to these critical areas. ln order to n1ini1nize impacts: • Do not remoYe the existing functional wetland buffer in order to cre;:ite new wetlanc.l; • Retaining walb should he used adjacent to proposed trails, the St(,r111 \\'ater pond, and an}· other area where extensii.e grading \•:ould othef\,·ise impact the buffer; and • Buffer slopes should not be any steeper than they arc under cxistjng conditions. In order to minimize impacts to the wetlands and buffers, the formerly proposed storm pond has been removed and replaced with a much more expensive vault outside the wetland and buffers. The trail has also been removed from the wetland and buffers. The previous mitigation proposed in the high functioning, conifer dominated buffer of Wetland B has been removed from the plan. Now all the mitigation/wetland creation is to occur between Wetlands A and C. Both of these wetlands are isolated and not associated with the larger Wetland 8. Fie/dbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 7 of 18 The proposed area for the creation is deciduous forest comprised of scattered big leaf maple, a single cottonwood, and understory of vine maple, elderberry, blackberry and Indian plum. This area has had past disturbance from mining and contains existing disturbed areas as well as some trash and debris. Portions also include a large man-made berm that is comprised of peat and coal tailings. Preliminary hydrology monitoring reveals groundwater at depths between 16"-28" of the surface within the proposed creation area. Soils in this area are gravelly loams on the surface with tighter clay soils beneath. Wetland creation in these types of soils is typically very successful. The proposed work in the buffers of these wetland to create over 25,000sf of additional wetland area will not remove pristine buffer. Additionally, the newly created wetland edge will then have a 50' buffer of existing forest to protect the resource. Any buffer area disturbed during the creation of the mitigation project will be restored with native tree and shrub species. All the large trees removed from the buffer and the grading of the wetland creation area will be utilized as habitat features (snags and large woody debris) within the wetland and buffer mitigation area. 2.g.2. :\ta mirnmum, all disturbed and im·asiH-dominared buffer addirions, as well as the areas desih'llatcd as "huffer restorationfor lemporary impacts" haYC to haw an enhancement plan that includes (at a mini1num): inYasiYe rerncffal; installation of appropriate nariYe trees and shrub5; performance standards (less than 1 ()U/,1 in\'asiYe cn\·er, at leasr "80 1};, sun-iYal for the first 2 years, reasonable 11/;, desirable \"n)ody coYer, reasonable diYersity of woody species); and monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans. All disturbed areas and the entire mitigation area will meet this goal. If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at cscwall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Existing Conditions Map Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan 'ieldbrook Commons/I 1-12 I .:Jewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 8 of /8 1.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PROTECT OVERVIEW To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to create 25,508sf of wetland between Wetlands A and C. 2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,508sf of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2.1 Create 25,508sf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE · The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3.1 Pre-construction meeting 3.2 Construction staking 3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3.4 Clearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3.7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3.10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist; the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved Fieldbrook Commons/I 1-12 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 9 of 18 understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3,6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3,7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the County's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. Fieldbrook Commons!] 1-121 Sewall Welland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page I0ofl8 Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner. 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the County biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3.9 Monitoring The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have beeri stabilized. The County's Biologist may recolillilend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation &. Grading 4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4.1.2The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all blackberry varieties onsite. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. 4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. March 16, 2012 Page 11 of 18 4.2.lAll plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 4.2.3All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval. 4.2.4All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.SSubstitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2.7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation . 4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. Fie/dbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 12 of 18 4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3.5All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.1 A fall-winter installation schedule (October 1st -March 15th ) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. Ist) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. 4.4.2All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with native mixes as specified on the plans, as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated and a grass cover established by October 1st. If the cover is not adequately established by October 1st, exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 13 of 18 4.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 4.5 Site Conditions 4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 4.5.2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 4.5.3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 4.5.4 After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 4.5.5 Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area. 4.5.6All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area. 5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope 5.1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: Fie/dbrook Commons/JJ-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 14 of 18 a, No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5.1.2Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut sterns only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed). b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 Watering Requirements 5.3.1 If plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months (October through March 15th ), watering is not required. However, watering will be encouraged if plants mortality rises due to dry conditions. Fieldbrook Commonsil 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 15 o/18 5.3.2If plantings are installed during the summer months (March through October 1'1 ), a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on- site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the County Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off. 6.1.1 Hydrology Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four (4) combination staff/crest gauges located within the restoration area to be placed at the time of the installation sign-off by the biologist. Surface water level or ground water saturation depths will be measured at these stations to determine if wetland hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually within 12" of the surface) during the growing season. The growing season for this area is generally defined as the period between the middle of March and the middle of November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year and sound professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing season is taking place at the site. 'ieldbrook Commons/I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 16 of 18 Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology is observed inundating or saturating the soil within 12 inches of the surface during the growing season. Readings will be made early in the growing season (@ March 15) to determine if wetland hydrology is present. 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation, as well as coverage estimates. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. · All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whether they area alive or dead based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be used to determine success of the vegetation component. Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant community for a total of 6 transects. Within the emergent plant community coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates of coverage percentages will be made within these plots. A total of 10 sample points within the herbaceous/ emergent plant community will be randomly located during the installation sign off. At each of these points four samples, one in each quadrant will be taken. Within the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody species will be recorded. Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be located during the installation sign off. Photographs will be taken at each of the monitoring and included with the monitoring report for each year from these points. 6.2 ST AND ARDS OF SUCCESS l.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 100% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 1. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 17 of 18 1.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2. l.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cover of woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50% cover of emergent species. 1.d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation area after year 10. 2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,508sf of wetland meeting at least the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,1987). 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the County approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency/ maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: -Replacing iclll plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigating the stream area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. 'ieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. March 16, 2012 Page 18 of 18 -Reseeding stream and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/ sedimentation occurs, -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. r · · -------r--~------·· I ~\t@@O Plenn\ng Division REVISED --Do;;7i/7911z:__----· · -· -·-- __ }-[~_ NOie: B,.. map provided by D.R. Strong 1-,d upon survoyof Sewall Wetland Consulting Wedand Delineation. FILDBROOK COMMONS PNWHOLDINGS, LLC WETLAND DELINEATION MAP Jal# 11-121 ll47E: QMMW~ ES ~tF; 1"=100' ~ DE8IGNER:_TS~-- ,::nvo,-i;• ,,,-ry; RECF!VLD MAR l J /l)l/ BUILDING DIVIS10i\J Sonllw...i 1 I [o_:o;g ™ + + + + + + + .±........±.... 25,430SF ~ CREAT10N 9303 SF M7WID FILL 4,78T SF BUFFER A 'IERAG/NG -ADDITION --------------------~--------- t==::===========~ 2,134 SF BUFFERA'IERAG/NG· --· -· · · SUBTRACnON -4,888 SF BUFFER RES TORA TJON FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS ___ I J-• La -n • .. >_----~---__ -_---N'_ I·.~:~ r-'2\!~f'' •{). . ' .. ~.,;:.;;, -----·"' '~ ''•M-' ,, '\;1."'-, -- ,_,)::) ' . . I ,-1 _ ,\ \, ) c?/ t---r~ -\ ,°';• C ' A a _1.. ... / ., ; ;] -1~-------" 'L ' -' ·-\ ,r----~~___........, I"--- WJ !J -··' / -~ /;jt/ -,,. '(_J/;11 ,, --,,. O"J~ ~LJ~ ~------.......... -1": .. ----..... ) ---: i • ' [----<':{ :'{: :;{{:':" ~~-:":.- B~ - 1) (;1) Date iq'/~ c11v,,,r,;:1:,,7 REci::1-vH o MAR l 9 --------__________________ _BJJJLD1r-J(> r:1 1 ,:: :. ·-:-:-~/T N°"': Bue map provided by D.R Strong based upon survoy of Sowa1l Wotland Conaulting Wetland Dolinealion. FILDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC CONCEPT DELINEA T/ON MAP JOBI 11-f:// DRAIW /1Y' ..___§§_ ~ lMII,;_ ,cue r-100· DEB/ONER: TS &onllW-~Joo. ................. 2764] CovingtOn WaySE.#2 Corinpoa, WA N04l 2-~~ '•-\•.' ---==~--- ''·l\~11~·:'. j ... ... '-;----~== 64 :.:~:.::Co-=~=~=-I _,W:.:n:.::1:.:ay=l:==~:.::~=--=C=-=o::.:n:.::su=Pl:.:.~!=~:.:n:..~u•-=l:.:.n:.:c::.:~c.. 5 _ ~. ---~-~---·---~ -__ Covmgton WA 98012 Fax: 25&8524732 April 10, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response-LUA12-001 swc Job#ll-121 Dear Vanessa, ClTY Of RENTON RECE!\JFD APR 1 lJ 2012 BUILDING DIVISION This is a response to your March 30, 2012 email regarding the Fieldbrook Commons project Below in italics are the items you asked us to address. After each item we have provided a response; 1. The Map was not drawn to a 1 to JOO scale, it appears to be drawn to a 1 to 50 scale. Please provide a map drawn to scale including a "drawn" scale. The plan is now shown with a "drawn scale" and is at a scale of l "=l 00'. 2. The buffer averaging square footage was not provided per area. The areas of buffer reduction and buffer addition using buffer averaging are now shown on the mitigation plan (see attached). 3. The new buffer distances were not provided in areas of reduced buffer. Dimensions are now included in the areas ofreduced buffer as requested. 4. A grading and clearing plan for the wetland creation shall be provided, including the total area of permanent impact and temporary impact. At this point in time we are still monitoring groundwater levels within the proposed creation area. So far monitoring has shown groundwater levels between 16"-28" below the existing surface of the proposed creation area. However, we need to monitor the area for approximately 1 more month to completely understand the hydrology of this area as it pertains to creating an appropriate grading plan that will allow us a higher certainty on creating adequate wetland hydrology. At that time we will prepare a grading plan which will depict the area to be graded and all areas to be o::I' N t:; cc 1-1 ::c >< w r·ieldbrook Commons/I I ~I 21 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April IO, 2012 Page 2 of 8 replanted in the creation area and any area within the buffer that would be graded back and require restoration. 5. RMC 4-8-120 D.23.i, this was not addressed. This section of Code states the following; i.. Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order: Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; Compensate for any wetland or buffer impacts; Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; Create new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and In addition to restoring a wetland or creating a wetland, enhance an existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost functions and values. This evaluation shall be submitted to the Department Administrator. Any proposed alteration of wetlands shall be evaluated by the Department Administrator using the above hierarchy. a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer: The site contains three small wetlands which the developer proposes to fill and mitigate for through the creation of a new wetland area and enhanced buffer areas between Wetlands A and C on the eastern third of the site. Wetland (F) located on the western side of the site is Category 3 wetland measuring l 595sf. Due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly out to I 081 h Ave S.E. the developer is unable to avoid direct impact to this wetland. Wetland (E) located in the center of the site and adjacent to S.E. 172nd St. measures 68sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland. Due to the requirement to dedicate and construct the other half of the S.E. 172nd St. ROW the developer is unable to avoid direct impacts to this wetland. Wetland (D) is located generally in the center of the project and is rated as a Category 2 wetland measuring 7671 sf. This wetland is located in the center of the site, and the preservation of this wetland with its associated buffer would remove such a large portion of the property as to not be feasible to develop in any way. b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; The developer previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around Wetland D, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building locations to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to Fieldbrook Comm om/ I I -I 2 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April JO, 2012 Page 3 of8 construct. The project has minimized impacts by avoiding impacts to Wetlands A, Band C and their associated buffers. These are the more valuable wetlands on the site, and preserving these wetlands would be the priority. c_ Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and No temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed except for along the edge of Wetlands A and C wehre the newly created wetland area will be constrcuted. Some temporarly buffer impacts will ccur from the construction of the stormwater outfall and along the edge of the buffers. These areas will be fully restoired following construction and replanted with native trees and shrubs. d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; This is not applicable to this site as no historic wetlands are located on the property to restore. ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost: and A total of 9334sf of wetland will be filled. As described in Code; "Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions". Additionally, Code states" Where feasible. created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. In no cases shall they be lower". Code Soecifies the following mitigation ratios for wetland i mpacts; i. RATIOS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION: Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio Category 1 Forested 6 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered. Emergent 2 times the area altered. Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 4 qf8 The following table outlines the wetlands to be filled and the required wetland creation using the City of Renton mitigation ratios: Wetland Size Category Vegetation Ratio Required Type Wetland Creation D 767lsf 2 Forested 3:1 23013sf E 68sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5:1 102sf F 1595sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5: I 2393sf Total 25508sf Creation As required by Code, we are proposing to create 25,508sf of wetland. This wetland will all be Category 2 wetland. Proposed Wetland Mitigation location rationale. Given the configuration, topography, hydrology and character of the site, the available wetland mitigation areas are limited by I. Where sufficient hydrology exists 2. Where enough area exists without extending a buffer onto off-site areas. 3. Where it makes the most sense to create a wetland that doesn't leave an isolated, low function wetland. If any area of the site except the eastern side of the site were selected we would be creating a wetland that would be surrounded by development, and there fore isolated from other open space areas. This creates a functionally isolated feature that will not provide suitable wildlife habitat or support for many species. Additionally, there are no areas on the site, except along the eastern portion near Wetlands A, B or C that have suitable groundwater elevations to support creation of a wetland. For example, if we were to attempt to leave Wetland D intact, ad do creation around this wetland, its likely there would not be suitable wetland hydrology to support this wetland. Wetland D is an isolated feature that appears to be perched on an impervious hardpan, that allows water to sit long enough to create wetland conditions. This wetland, as well as Wetlands E and F do not appear to be intersecting a surficial groundwater system as does Wetlands A-C. As a result, creation in these areas in and around Wetlands D,E and F would most likely lead to areas that would not successfully create wetland hydrologic conditions. Ideally, as is typically done in most wetland mitigation projects that are successful, expansion of an existing wetland with sufficient hydrology is utilized to create addition wetland. This consists of taking the edge of an existing wetland or wetlands, and by grading back from the edge of the wetland and creating grades similar to the wetland, interception the surficial groundwater table allows creation of wetland hydrologic conditions. This is what we are proposing to do in the area between Wetlands A and C. Based upon our hydrologic monitoring, these wetlands appear to have suitable hydrology for creation of wetland between them. Fie/dbrook Commons!J J-121 Smail Wetland Consulting, Inc. April JO, 2012 Page 5 of8 As is typical in this type of creation, and also unavoidable, the excavation and creation must occur within the existing buffer of the wetlands. However, as is shown on our plan, we now move the buffer to the edge of the creation area, thus maintaining the required buffer on the new enlarged wetland. It should also be pointed out that most of the area between Wetland A and C proposed as a mitigation area has been historically disturbed by past mining and clearing activities. We have specifically tried to avoid the larger grove of conifers located in the buffer of Wetland B to preserve this higher quality habitat. 6. Wetland Mitigation Plan shall included the following additional items: a. Sufficient area for replacement ratios As depicted in the Table above, and on the attached Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we are meeting the ratios of mitigation required by Code. b. Planting scheme for wetland recreation and buffer enhancement areas At this point in time, it is premature to prepare a detailed planting scheme. Once the concept is approved, and the grading plan completed, we will prepare a plan that depicts the location of the native trees, shrubs and emergent plants to be installed, as well as the habitat features such as large woody debris (L WD) and snags. However, we would expect to include the following species within the created wetland and buffer areas; Douglas fir, western red cedar, sitka spruce, big leaf maple, Pacific willow, cascara, western crabapple, red osier dogwood, sitka willow, salmonberry, nootka rose, clustered rose, twinberry, Indian plum, hazelnut, black hawthorne, red elderberry, vine maple, slough sedge, small fruited bulrush, and other species. c. A complete description of the structure and functional relationships sought in the new wetland As previously described, the new created wetland will create a larger combined Category 2 wetland by connecting Wetland A and C. This will result in a wetland that will include several hydrologic regimes including seasonally flooded and saturated areas. In addition, several types of plant communities will be present based upon hydrologic conditions. The created wetland will have a mix of hydrologic and vegetation characteristics which will provide a greater variety of wildlife habitats and opportunities for wildlife. The placement of L WO and snags will create habitat features that do not currently exist within this area. d. A description of the author's experience in restoring or creating wetlands I have worked on hundreds of wetland mitigation projects throughout Washington State and the Pacific Northwest as well as in Ohio, New England and in Georgia since 1990. I have worked on small projects as well as large complex projects and have designed wetlands with a variety of hydrologic regimes, including numerous with slope type characteristics as presented here that have been very successful. I am very aware of the criteria needed to successfully create wetlands that replace and exceed the functions lost by the filling of the wetland they are meant to mitigate. Fieldbrook Commonsll l-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 6 of8 I am highly confident the proposed Fieldbrook Commons mitigation plan will be successful as we have described it. e. An analysis of the likelihood of success and persistence based on ground water supply, flow pa/terns, etc. As previously described above as well as described below, we have been monitoring the levels of groundwater within the proposed creation areas. The monitoring results within the first month of the growing season show the water table within 24" of the existing soil surface in the proposed creation area. We are aware that currently, groundwater within Wetland A seeps subsurface in a northerly direction through the upland area between Wetlands A and Cat a depth between 18"- 24". Our goal within this creation area is to maintain that same hydrologic contour within the soil profile, but to remove enough of the surface soils to bring water within 12" of the surface to create wetland hydrology conditions. 7. An analysis of impact on hydrology of the existing wetlands A and C after the additional creation of a new wetland adjacent. Would the creation of the new wetland change the categorization of the existing wetlands? In turn changing the buffer size? As previously stated, we are currently monitoring the hydrology of the area between Wetlands A and C to determine final grades of the creation area. It is probable, given the slight difference in elevation between Wetland A and C (approximately 12"), a portion of the creation area will be a "slope type" wetland. The grade between these two existing wetlands in the creation area will be determined based upon groundwater elevations we determine from our monitoring. Based upon those findings, the sloping portion of the wetland creation area will be a portion of the wetland that will have primarily saturated soils with no surface water. This will allow a slow migration of water through the soil profile from the south to the north through the creation area. This is currently occurring already in the upland area between Wetland A and C. However, it is at a depth >12" which differentiates it from an area that would be considered wetland. A portion of the surface soils will be removed that will bring this saturated soil zone within 12" of the surface meeting wetland hydrology criteria. This should have no impact on the wetland hydrology of either Wetlands A or C. The water we will be intercepting exists within the soil profile in the proposed creation area. We will be removing soil from this area to bring this hydrology closer to the surface, and in portions on the surface of the creation area. We will also be directing clean roof water from the proposed development within the contributing basin, to the edge of the buffer in level spreaders to maintain the hydrologic patters of the site. Connecting Wetland A, a Category 2 wetland, to Wetland C, a Category 3 wetland, will result in Wetland C now being considered a Category 2 wetland. As a result a 50' standard buffer would e required on Wetland C now, and that is what we are providing as depicted on the attached plan. 8. Address review criteria of 4-3-050M6j (i-vii) for buffer averaging. i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and Fieldbrook Commons!/ 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 7 of8 The proposed buffer averaging in the reduced areas will be within areas that have sufficient dense, native vegetation to maintain the function of the wetlands and protect these we lands. The portions of the wetlands closest to these reduced areas are not unique or have any sensitive characteristics that would make them susceptable to impact. ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and The proposed averaging will not impact the functions or character of these wetlands in this area. The area of the reusltion is in low impact parking areas and will generally not have heavy use such as living or recreational areas. iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and The proposed averaging will result in a reduction of 2, 135sf of buffer, but with a subsuquent addtioon of 4, 787sf of buffer, resulting in a net gain of 2,652sf of buffer. iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed The proposed buffer averaging and buffer widths follow the City requirements as specified in the code. The document cited above is a document that was put together to give jurisdictions some guidance on determining standard buffer widths to include in their regulations. It does not appear an appropriate citation or document to be using in this contex as standard buffer widths have been decided and adopted as Code. v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25') wide. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-2508; and The standard buffer on the wetlands being averaged is 50' There are two areas of buffer reduction within the averaging plan, onfthat reduces the width to 28.5', and a second to 34'. Botht of these areas are >50% of the standard buffer widtha nd meet this criteria vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case- by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. Fie/dbrook Commons/I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April JO, 2012 Page 8 o/8 The buffer in the areas of the reduction is densly planted with native vegetation. There is no need to enhance these buffer areas. vii. Notification may be required pursuant to subsection F8 of this Section. Notification, if required will be done. 9. Please included the trial in the design addressing all portions ofOTAK's report on trail impacts to the wetlands. As required by the City, we have included a trail through the wetland buffer. This trail will be a soft surface wood chip trail that passes through the middle of the buffer area between Wetlands C and B. The If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan ............. ""' __ _,,"·'"": ... , ,..... .. ,. .... ,t,----. r -~ ~=fi;.,_ ·,J.. ·· -.. _r"\ .. r'c.l' ·µq- i 'Ill ·vW r ' '"1··,, .. Q"V ~-..=_i,~~~' {' "' ,-· '· --= '1 u ) '\ ' ,, u ,~ .,cl~.{:;-~}~?·,_ ' ' ur l r. P . . . . ·. \ [o:o_:_q ™ + + + + + + + ±________±____± I==============~ Wll]j i.!.1./i; .. _, 25,508 SF WETUNO CREATION 9,334 SF WETUNO FILL 4,187 SF fJIJFFER AVERAGING -ADOfTION 4, 176 SF fJIJFFER A VERAG/NG • SUB111ACTIOII 4,624 SF fJIJFFER RESTORA T10N FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS m~~·i 011 (,/ :::=1· .·.· ~~\/\ <. ,· ,-l -·-·;.J. \,,' L I -::.----~-;~\ .. -·· r \] \i , .. ; :ij ~ d .. ·-, "\j c·-~ _: ·' //' o·· . !l '-..... A18 BlffERHIMTICIC cf ,..r i ·-·--.,. /. " ;i I "'"'""'""'"""°""" ,.,,.., I (~ -! &5878FIIUFRRFUJORA1DI Cl:ATOI L;-' j I j< .~ n Ii I . • .. r····. • ··.• ' •. ··.•· , •.• J·. --I ~I 1~:, •. ='j\ ~~" Noto: Base-providodby D.R. &-baaed upon ,wveyof&ewlll Weeland ConlUlting Wetland Dellnealion. JOBI ll'f2/ lll!E:. twt e f"l=tOO' D FIELDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, UC CONCEPT DELINEATION MAP IR411rt Bl"___§§_ ~ -.11112 DEJJl/1IER: TS I 50 I/JD 150 1(/() SCALE: ,. • 100' Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Points Dn·ve Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Stephanie Smith, Wetland Biologist Kevin O'Brien, Senior Wildlife Biologist June 13, 2012 Fieldbrook Commons Second Review 31989B As requested by the City of Renton (City), Otak biologists have prn;ously conducted a site visit and provided a review of documents provided by the City related to the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project for compliance with City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinances. Otak provided the City with a review memorandum dated February 29, 2012. This second review is in response to the comments and changes pro,;ded by the applicant's biologist as outlined in Otak's February review. The applicant's biologist has provided a detailed outline addressing many of the recommendations brought forth by Otak as well as a revised concept delineation map and wetland delineation map. Introduction A wetland delineation was conducted in April 2011 by the applicant's biologist that identified a total of six wetlands on the project site, which include: three Category II wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and D) and three Category III wetlands (Wetlands C, E, and F). The project site consists of three parcels (2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023)-Two of the parcels create a long, narrow corridor east to west and the third parcel extends to the south to make the project site somewhat "T" shaped. The smallest parcel (2923059168), in the northwest comer of the project area, previously had a fire station on the property. The building has since been demolished, leaving the property vacant but for paved parking areas, grave~ and overgrown landscaping. The other two parcels that make up the project area are forested with some evidence of past use, including dilapidated buildings and adjacent mine tailings. The project proposes to fill three wetlands (approximately 9,334 square feet) and provide compensatory mitigation onsite by creating approximately 25,508 square feet of wetland habitat. The proposed wetland mitigation area is located within the buffers of the existing wetlands on site that are not proposed to be filled. K \project \31900\31989B\Reports \Fiddbrwk Commons Second Revie'>ll_0<513_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 2 Fie!dbrook Commons Second Reiiew June 13, 2012 This memorandum outlines general background information, findings of the review responses, and additional recommendations. SpecificaHy, this memorandum provides review, comment, and recommendations for the documents and exhibits indicated below: Documents Reviewed • • • Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response -LUA 12-001, response to City comments ( dated April 10, 2012) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response with revised Mitigation Plan, response to Otak comments (dated March 16, 2012) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Fieldbrook Commons Concept Delineation Map -11x17 and full size (dated April 2012, revision) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Fieldbrook Commons Wetland Delineation Map -11x17 only (dated March 2012, revision) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Background Information Sources City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) accessed from: http:/ /www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ (Referred to in this memorandum as RMq Response to Field brook Critical Areas Review Response, dated March 16, 2012 by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Sewall Wetland Consulting comments are indicated in italics, below. Otak response comments are indicated in bold, below. Underlined lettering below indicates further action needed or if the recommended action has been appropriately addressed. 2.a. Offsite Wetlands: As requested, we investigated the off-site wetland area identified by OTAK. It appears to be a linear extension of Wetland B. We measured the distance of this wetland to the eastern property fine of the site and it was 5 5 '. As this distance appears to be a part of Wetland B, this would also be a Category 2 wetland with a 50' buffer. This buffer would not extend onto the site. The applicant has appropriately identified and addressed the offsite wetland in the response memorandum and also by including the approximate location of the wetland and its buffer on the wetland delineation map. This action item has been appropriately addressed. 2.b. Wetland and Buffer Functions: The applicant's biologist copied the recommendation to include a table into the response memo, but did not provide a table that compares existing and proposed wetland and buffer K \project\3 l 9D0\31989B\Reporu \Fiddbrook Commons Second Review _0613_ 12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 3 Fieldbrook Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 functions and values (including the low, moderate, and high ratings) using the Ecology methodology. The recommendation for wetland functions was appropriately addressed later in the document (1.4.3.2). We recommend that the applicant submit the ratings forms in order for the City to provide concurrence with the analysis and to verify the functional lift associated with the proposed wetland conditions. However, no assessment of wetland buffer functions and values was provided. We recommend an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitig;,tion·,.,,i]] achieve functional equivalency~particularlv as the proposed project will remove existing forested buffer and replace that habitat with created wetland. 2.c. Maps: Maps contain scales and notes are legible in the copies provided to the City. The full size map provided to the City and forwarded on to Otak contains scale bars and notes are legible. The llxl 7 maps provided to the City and forwarded on to Otak do not contain scale bars and are not legible at half-size. Future submittals should include full scale maps with scale bars and legible notes. This action item is adequate for this review. 2.d. Wetland B Buffer Encroachment The area will be restored by removing the fence and replanting with native trees and shrubs. In addition to removing the dilapidated fence and replanting the encroached area with native trees and/ or shrubs, the buffer will need to have a split rail fence installed to prevent future intrusion. This recommended action is sufficient for this review· the final wetland mitigation plan should include fencing in this area. 2.e. Tree Retention: It is impossible to Jill any wetland that has trees and not remove them. Trees within the filled wetland will be removed. However, the proposed mitigation plantings replaces these trees with many more trees than will be removed. The areas of clearing within existing buffer of Wetland A far expansion of the wetland will also have trees removed. However, all of the new wetland and buffer will be planted with a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. It is understood that tree removal will be required in order to fill wetlands and buffers as well as grade the area for wetland creation. However, this comment was provided in order to highlight the importance of a high functioning buffer. While many more trees will be planted, it is the existing forested canopy that is providing the function. Small trees, recently installed will not provide the same functions for up to 20 or 30 years or more. Through the revised wetland mitigation plan the forested buffer of Wetland B will be preserved. Some forested buffer areas and the functions they provide will still be impacted, but at a slightly lower level of function. K \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Commons Second Review _0613_ 12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Econolllic Development Page 4 Fie!dbrook Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 This recommended action has been appropriatelv addressed at this time. The Cit;y and Cit;y biologist will review the tree removal and land clearing plan when submitted by the applicant. 2.f.1 Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets: The March 16, 2012 memo from Sewall Wetland Consulting addressed a number of issues and provided numerous comments under the 2.f.1 heading. This memo addresses these comments below: The revised mitigation plan will not impact the buffer of Wetland B which is high functioning. Instead the new plan proposed creating wetland between Wetlands A and C and converting moderate function buffer to wetland, and then move the buffer to the edge of the newjy created wetland. No k!SS of buffer function will occur as the same 50' buffer will be utilized on the new wetland creation area. The project proposes to convert existing buffer for Wetlands A and C to created wetland. Per tbe response to 2.b above, an assessment of existing buffer function and proposed buffer function should be conducted by the applicant, in order to demonstrate that no net loss of wetland buffer function will occur as a result of the project. We recommend an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalenq particularly as the proposed project will remove existing forested buffer and replace that habitat with created wetland. The final mitigation plan will depict NGP A areas as we// as specific locations of signs and fencing. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed. Using the W ADOE Wetland rating systems which is based on 3 major recognized wetland functions, Wetland D · scored 3 3 points, indicating a Category 3 wetland which also indicates low-moderate overall functional value. Wetlands E & F scored 25 and 29 points, respectivejy. This indicates low function Category 4 wetlands. As seen in Table 1 below, a substantial fanctional lift will be attained from the connection of Wetlands A and C with 25,508 sf of additional wetland over the existing/unctions of the proposed Jill wetlands. The newjy created wetland will conned to existing Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands A and CJ and provide enough lift that this wetland will now be considered a Category 2 wetland under the W ADOE rating system. This is a substantial lift in funccion, surface water storage and species richness over the proposed low value Category 3 and 4 fill wetlands. We recommend that the applicant submit the ratings forms in order for the Cit;y to provide concurrence with the analysis, and to verify the functional lift associated with the proposed conditions. A revised and updated critical areas report including the ratings forms, is an appropriate vehicle to do so or submittal of the ratings forms as a critical areas report addendum. This (location and direction of proposed illumination out of and away from the wetland and buffer areas to protect buffer functions) will be noted on site plans for portions of the development abutting the wetland and buffer areas. K \project\3 l 900\31989B\Reports \Fiddbrook Commons Second Review_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Comnwnity and Economic Development Page 5 Fieldbrook Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. The City and City biologist will review the site plans when submitted by the applicant. Currently we are monitoring groundwater within 6 wells within the new proposed wetland creation area between u,etlands A and C. Current readings indicate groundwater is at a depth from 16 "-28" bekiw the surface. We will continue to monitor these points into April to devekip an appropriate gradingplan to create wetland conditions within the mitigation area. The 2' elevation difference between Wetlands A & C will be considered when we prepare a final gradingplan based upon groundwater elevations. It's possible that a small portion of the created wetland may have skipe wetland characteristics. We have employed this type of grading in several wetland mitigation projects successfulfy. However, this will depend upon our findings of our hydrokigy monitoring which is currentfy being conducted. Two months of hydrology monitoring in a single year is a very small sample size on which to base wetland hydrology design. Project timing constraints, however, are understood to pertain. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. The Citv will request review of the hydrology monitoring protocols data and data analvsis as this information becomes available. The use of a berm in this area (to prevent surface water draining from the proposed created wetland into Wetland B) if used, will be constructed of a soil material that will be an impediment to water passing through the berm through the use of a barrier such as clay. This recommended action is currently sufficient: however the City may require further mitigation plan changes based on future design options and elements. No impacts or excavation in the area of Wetland B are proposed at this time. This recommended action is currently sufficient: however the City may require further mitigation plan changes based on future design options and elements. Grass seed will be eliminated from the plantingplan. Use of chips or mulch will be utilized instead. Grass seed provision will be removed from the planting plan and arborist mulch will be used instead. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed. 2.f.5. The performance standards have been revised and included in the revised conceptual wetland mitigation plan. Further recommendations regarding the performance standards are included below in a separate review of the document. 2.f.6. Trails: The trail was requested by the City. It has been removed from the plan so there will be no trail impacts. K.: \project\31900\31989B \Reports \Fiddbrook Commons Second Review_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 6 Fieldbrook Commons Second &vie1v June 13, 2012 The trail has been relocated to the wetland buffer per April 10, 2012 revised Conceptual Delineation Map. Per RMC 4-3-050C7.a.i(2), "trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer." We recommend a design realignment of the trail to comply with the RMC allowed use of this feature in the outer 25% of the buffer. 2.f.7. Grading Plans: The plan has been revised to eliminate any connection to Wetland B. The plan will connect Wetlands A and C through the minimum grading required far the required wetland creation area. This will be based upon the results of our hydrology monitoring which started March 12, 2012. When we have sufficient early growing season hydrology data the gradingplans far the mitigation area will be prepared. We anticipate that to be near the end of April-middle of May. Two months of hydrology monitoring in a single year is a very small sample size on which to base wetland hydrology design. Project timing constraints, however, are understood to pertain. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. The City will request review of the grading plan, and the hydrology monitoring protocols data and data analysis as this information becomes available. 2.f.8. Storm Pond: The storm pond has been eliminated from the project and a buried vault will be utilized outside of the wetlands and associated buffers. A stormwater outfall is located on the Concept Delineation Map. If available provide additional information regarding stormwater outfall design anticipated stormwater volumes and how the adjacent wetlands and buffers (particularlv Wetland BJ will be protected from potential impacts regarding the outlet location (e.g. How will the hydroperiod of Wetland B be affected?). At a minimum, a conceptual description of the stormwater outfall, the extent of its service area, proposed vault volume and sizing criteria proposed discharge structure, proposed stormwater fate after discharge (infiltration, sheet flow through buffers to created wetlands and/or to Wetland B), and its potential impacts to wetlands and buffers should be provided. 2.f.9. Permits: When the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we can then prepare a Final Detailed Plan which would be suitable for submittal for a Nationwide Permit from the Anny Corps of Engineers, as well as to WSDOE for401 Water Quality Certification. It is premature to submit far these permits at this time as the required documents (Final mitigation plan and reports) have not been prepared. Final mitigation plan designs may undergo changes, possibly significant, based on responses from the Corps and/ or Ecology. Development of a final mitigation plan in a coordinated fashion with the Corps and/ or Ecology may minimize future design alterations. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. K: \project\31900\31989B \Reports \Fiddbrook Conunons Second Review _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 7 Fie!dbrook Commons Second Rniew June 13, 2012 2.f.10. Long Term Monitoring: City of Renton Code requires monitoring and bonding of wetland mitigation pro;ect for five years. Although it is likely that the Corps and W ADO E may require 10 years of monitoring, the plan to be submitted to the City will meet the City Code of 5 years of mentoring. I-[ydrology monitoring of the creation area will be a component. An effective mitigation plan could be developed for a five-year period and a ten-year period, with the performance standards and monitoring events for a ten-year effort triggered if the Corps/Ecology ten year monitoring standard it imposed. If 10 years of monitoring are required, an addendum to the wetland mitigation plan will be prepared to address the Corps requirements. 2.g. Buffers: In order to minimize impaas to the wetland and buffers, the formerly proposed storm pond has been removed and replaced with a much more expensive vault outside the wetland and buffers. The replacement of the proposed storm pond with a vault as a potential means of minimizing impacts to wetlands and buffers is acknowledged, but additional information would validate that minimization effort. Please see response for 2.f.8 above for additional information on vault and stormwater outfall design and impacts to wetland and buffers. The trail has also been removed from the wetland and buffers. The trail has been relocated to the wetland buffer per April 10, 2012 revised Conceptual Delineation Map. The trail has been relocated to the wetland buffer per April 10, 2012 revised Conceptual Delineation Map. Per RMC 4-3-050C7.a.i(2), "trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer." We recommend a design realignment of the trail to comply with the RMC allowed use of this feature in the outer 25% of the buffer. The previ.ous mitigation proposed in the high functioning, conifer dominated buffer of Wetland B has been removed from the plan. Now all the mitigation/ wetland creation is to occur between Wetlands A and C. Both of there wetlands are isolated and not associated with the larger Wetland B. The proposed area for the creation is deciduous forest comprised of scattered big leaf maple, a single cottonwood, and understory of vi.ne maple, elderberry, blackberry and Indian plum. This area has had past disturbances from mining and contains existing disturbed areas ar we/! as some trash and debris. Portions also include a large man-made berm that is comprised of peat and coal tailings. Preliminary hydrology monitoring reveals groundwater at depths between 12"-28".ofthe surface within the proposed creation area. Soils in this area are gravelly loams on the rurface with tighter clay soils beneath. Wetland creation in these types of soils is typically very successful The proposed work in the buffers of these wetlands to create over 25,000 sf of additional wetland area will not remove pristine buffer. Additionally, the newly created wetland edge will then have a 50' buffer of existingforest to protect the resource. Any buffer area disturbed during creation of the mitigation project will be rertored with native tree and shrub species. Ail K: \project \31900\31989B \Reports \Fieldbrook Commons Second Re11:iew_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 8 Fie!dbrook Commons Second &view June 13, 2012 the large trees removed from the buffer and the grading of the wetland creation area will be utilized as habitat Jeaturr:s (snags and large woody debris) within the wetland and buffer mitigation area. Existing forested buffer habitat occurs on the project property, surrounding the onsite wetlands and providing buffer functions, with buffer widths substantially greater than 50 feet. We recommend an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency~particularly as the proposed project will remove existing forested buffer and replace that habitat with created wetland. Comments Regarding Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan attached to Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response Memo (March 16, 2012) A final wetland mitigation plan and report will be forthcoming at a future date. These comments address the specific sections of the conceptual mitigation section in the memo dated March 16, 2012. General Comments: Remove residual language from previous reports, in particular, all references to the County (Sections 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 5.4, 7.2). Either City staff and/or agency (Corps and/or Ecology) staff will be project contacts. All portions of the wetland mitigation plan that pertains to the site preparation and conditions, plant installation, schedule, and warranty etc. should be included on a plan sheet for project bid and work reference purposes. 3.0. Construction Sequence 3.9. Monitoring: Add caveat that 10 years of monitoring may be required if the Corps takes jurisdiction. 4.0. Construction and Planting Notes 4.1.3. Sentence should read "The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all non-native, invasive plant species onsite, including the removal of root crowns. These species may include, but are not limited to Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, English ivy, and English holly." Trailing blackberty, a native species in the Pacific Northwest, should not be removed. Additionally, provide details regarding how the invasive species should be removed so as to not damage the desirable native species, and specify that the applicant's biologist shall oversee weeding of the buffer addition planting areas. 4.2.3. No balled and burlapped or bare root plant stock should be used. Container stock only. K: \project \31900\31989B \Reports\Fiddbrook Commons Sewnd Review _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 9 Fieldbrook Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 4.3.3. Planting Pits: Revise the section to specify that the planting pit shall not be deeper than the root ball. Plants should be installed according to htt;p://,vww.soundnativeplants.com/PDF/plantingtips.pdf. 4.4.2. All disturbed areas will be protected with arborist mulch to a minimum depth of six inches. As stated previously, grass seed should not be applied around newly installed plants. 5.0. Maintenance Program 5.1.3.a. The use of glyphosphate herbicide should be a last resort. The removal bf stems and root crowns is more effective. Add a caveat that herbicide must be applied by an appropriately licensed individual. 5.3. Watering should still take place during the first spring and summer after planting, even if planting occurs between October and March 15"'. 6.0. Wetland and Buffer Monitoring Program • To he consistent with guidance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology, revise the "6.1 Sampling Methodology" section to specify that Year 1 monitoring will occur in the growing season after the plants have been installed for at least one calendar year. In other words, if the plants are installed in fall 2012 or spring 2013, Year 1 monitoring will occur in August or early September 2014. • Revise the "6.1.1 Hydrology" section to include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the wetland creation area monthly (at a minimum) from March through May in piezometers per guidance from USACE (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/tnwrap00-2.pdf). Toe use of staff/ crest gauges will not provide useful data if the watet is below the ground surface. • Revise the ''Vegetation" section to specify that annual vegetation monitoring will occur in late summer (August or early September). In addition to data specified in this section, sample plot data shall include: plant species present; count of surviving installed plants; general health and condition of installed plans; and presence and percent cover by individual non-native invasive species. Revise the "6.1.2 Vegetation" section to include rectangular or square (not transects) monitoring plots that represents approximately ten percent of the-installed vegetation areas and adequately represents the wetland creation and buffer enhancement areas. The permanent monitoring plots should also reasonably represent the plant communities to be established. All four comers of each plot should be staked with metal fence posts or tall re-bar and marked with flagging. Revise the paragraph regarding photo points to include photos at a consistent corner of each monitoring plot as well as overview photo points. • Add a section to specify that that during the annual monitoring visit (during the first two years), flagging or markers will be replaced as necessary on each of the originally installed or replacement plants to distinguish them from volunteers. If flagging is used, it must be attached to side branches, not central leaders, and it must be attached in a manner such that it does not K \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Commons Second Review_0613_ 12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 10 Fie!dbmok Commons Second Reiiew June 13, 2012 restrict growth or girdle the plants. Old flagging should be checked to see if it is restricting growth. 6.2. Standards of Success: 1.b. Add caveat that only installed plants can be counted towards satisfying the survival performance standards. Add a performance standard for plant diversity; native volunteers can count towards this performance standard. 1.c. If only 5 years of monitoring is required per the City, performance standards must address all 5 years. • A performance standard of 60% cover by woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Year 3 is ambitious and difficult to achieve, and may be adjusted downward: 30% for the restored buffer during Year 3, 40% during Year 4, and 50% by Year 5 • Performance standards for woody vegetation in the created wetland: 40'% cover by Year 3, 50% by Year 4, and 65% by Year 5 • Emergent vegetative cover is likely to be shaded out as woody vegetation establishes. We recommend emergent vegetative cover of 25% by Year 5 to reflect a shrub and forest vegetative community. Performance Standards for percent cover will be addressed during the review of the final wetland mitigation plan. It is difficult to appropriately address performance standards without a grading plan and plant pallet, and the above recommendations may be subject to change based on review of the grading plan and plant pallet. 1.d. Revise sentence that there should not be more than 10 percent cover of non-native invasive species within the mitigation area during all monitoring years. Specify that non-native invasive species include those on the King County Noxious Weed List http://wv,;w.kingcounty.gov/emironment/animalsAndPlants /noxious weeds /laws /list.aspx, including the Non-Regulated Noxious Weeds and King County Weeds of Concern. 2. A final delineation of wetland boundaries in Year 5 should be conducted to ensure the appropriately-sized created wetland area has been established. 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species can only be included as acceptable components of the mitigation performance standards through the percent cover performance standard, not as part of the percent survival. 7 .0 Contingency Plan: 7.1. Provide additional information regarding contingency plans if adequate wetland hydrology is not achieved in the wetland creation area. 7.3. Remove residual language from previous reports including references to "irrigating the stream area" and "reseeding stream and buffer areas". K \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Commons Second Rev:iew _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 11 Fieldbrook Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 Response to City Email (Sewell Wetland Consulting document dated April I 0, 2012) Items 1 through 4 were appropriately addressed. The City and City biologist will review the clearing and grading plans when submitted by the applicant. Sa. Given the nature of the project and the site constraints, the issue was appropriately addressed. Sb. The second sentence states, "the project has minimized impacts by avoiding impacts to Wetlands A, Band C and their associated buffers." This is not the case as there will be significant impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A and C in order to combine the two wetlands. Per comments for 2b on page 3 of this memo, an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency will provide a rationale for avoidance and minimization of impacts to the wetland buffers. Sc. Issue was appropriately addressed. The City and City biologist will review restoration details as mitigation planning develops. Sd.i. Issue was appropriately addressed. Sd.ii. Project applicant provided appropriate wetland creation ratios for the identified wetland impacts. 6a. Issue was appropriately addressed. 6b. A detailed planting plan will be forthcoming at a future date for review by the City. The City and City biologist will review planting plans upon submittal by the applicant. 6c. It is assumed that the created wetland will provide a seasonally flooded hydrologic regime. The City will request review of the hydrology monitoring protocols, data, and data analysis as this information becomes available. 6d. Issue was appropriately addressed. 6e. Under 6c, it is assumed that there will be seasonally flooded area within the wetland, and 6e states that it is the "goal to maintain the hydrologic contour within the soil profile, but to remove enough of the surface soils to bring water within 12" of the surface to create wetland hydrology conditions." Additionally, without a hydrogeologist conducting a site study, it is the assumption of the applicant's biologist "that groundwater within Wetland A seeps subsurface in a northerly direction through the upland area between Wetlands A and C at a depth between 18" -24"." It is our K: \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Commons Second Review _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department ofConununity and Economic Development . Page 12 Fieldbrook Commons Second Revieu1 June 13, 2012 best professional judgment and our concern for project success that u,ith marginal hydrology data regarding groundwater levels that these are results are assumptive. As the information becomes available, the City will request review of the hydrology monitoring protocols, data, and data analysis to further evaluate the project feasibility. 7. As stated above, without more hydrologic information and a grading plan, these comments are assumptive. This section is also the first time it has been mentioned that "roof drains will be directed to the edge of the buffer in level spreaders to maintain hydrologic patters (sic) of the site." Provide additional information regarding number of roof drains, assumed volume, and where on the site the flow will be directed. Provide an analysis addressing how this hydrologic input will not affect the hydrologic patterns of the wetlands and buffers. Si. Issue was appropriately addressed. 8ii. While it is adequate that the buffers are reduced in the proposed areas, it is not the basis of it being a parking lot that makes it low impact vs. high impact living areas that may adversely impact the wetland function and value. Considerations for the "low impact" parking lot include potential for toxic runoff, headlights shining into the wetlands and buffers, and trash being contributed to the buffer. Numerous threats exist for the pedestrian trail being placed in the buffer, including people creating new trails, leaving trash, and causing noise disturbance to wetland birds and animals. While buffer averaging is adequate in the proposed areas, the final wetland mitigation plan should address solutions these issues 0e. installing a split rail fence along the trail). 8iii. Issue was appropriately addressed. 8iv. While the proposed buffer averaging and buffer widths follow the City requirements, the City code srill requires the applicant to provide a site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy (RMC 4-3-050M6.f). Per comments for 2b on page 3 of this memo, an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency and would constitute an appropriate evaluation. Per If the McMillan 2000 document is not an appropriate document to reference other Best Available Science documents can be referenced. 8v. Issue was appropriately addressed. 8vi. Some enhancement of the buffer may be necessaty near the western and northwestern sections of Wetland B as this area had some disturbance and encroachment from the neighboring properties. Additionally, it is noted on the large plan sheet that the areas adjacent to the buffer subtraction will K: \project \31900\319B9B\Reports \Field.brook Commons Second R.eview _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 13 Fieldbrook Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 also have some buffer restoration due to temporary impacts. All buffer restoration and enhancement components should be included in the final wetland mitigation report and plan sheers. 8vii. Include the notification requirement in the final wetland mitigation plan. 9. Per RMC 4-3-050C7.a.i(2), "trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer". As previously requested, the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the proposed trail will not degrade wetland or buffer functions and values. Relocate the trail to be in compliance with RMC 4-3-050C7.a.i(2). Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Regards, Otak, Inc. Stephanie Smith Wetland Biologist Otak, Inc. 10230 NE Points Dr., Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Kevin O'Brien, Ph.D. Senior Wildlife Biologist Otak, Inc. 10230 NE Points Dr., Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 K:\project\31900\3 J 989B\Reports \Fiddbrook Commons Second Review _0613_ 12.doc ( 425) 739-7978 (425) 822-4446 (Office) (425) 827-9577 (Fax) (425) 739-7975 (Direct Line) (425) 822-4446 (Office) (425) 827-9577 (Fax) •~~IIID!WJ~111,.,.~ J,. ·.:...· ----:=-=:=-=~:.::c-=~=11=--=W=-=n wc::e=-=!=·:=~=1=--=C=-=o=-=n:.::s=~:=:l~=i=-=n,.~.,,...:l:c:n:.:c::.:.'-- 5 - September 17, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Covington WA 90042 Fax: 2.»S52-4Z32 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response -LUA12-001 swc Job#l 1-121 Dear Vanessa, This is a response to the June 13, 2012 OTAK review regarding the Fieldbrook Commons project. Below, listed with the page and paragraph from the OTAK report in italics are the items that were underlined in the OTAK report that required further response from us. After each item we have provided a response; Page 5 paragraph 1: "We recommend the applicant submit ratingforms in order for the City to concur with the analysis and verify functional lift,, we recommend that an explicit assessment of existing proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency". The rating form for the new wetland mitigation area, which includes Wetlands A and C are attached to this report as requested. The existing buffer of Wetlands A and C that will be impacted consists of an open deciduous forested canopy comprised of big leaf maple, some small western hemlock, as well as an open understory of vine maple, indian plum, Himalayan blackberry and scattered other small shrubs. Several trails, piles of trash and debris, several coal tailing piles, and· a small homeless camp is found in this area. This area currently provides some thermal cover to the area around and along the edges of the wetland. It also provides a source of organic material which contributes to the soil composition as well as a source of food to invertebrates utilizing the wetland. The buffer provides some sound reduction from the surrounding residential uses abutting the property. The buffer also provides some barrier to human intrusion. However, the forest is relatively open and sound reduction in this area is not that high. Additionally, the use of the area by local youth on bikes etc. and on and off by homeless has further reduced this function as human use in and around these wetlands appears to occur regularly. ID N ~ 1-1 co .... ::c X w Fie/dbrook Commons/] 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 2 of 15 Wetland buffers can also act as filters to runoff entering the wetland, acting to clean and filter contaminants form sheet flow into the wetland. This function appears relatively intact. The proposed wetland creation area will require some conversion of forested buffer to wetland. It will also shift existing upland forest outside of the existing wetland buffers of Wetlands A and C, into the buffer as the edge is expanded. In essence, the buffer remains forested except for portions of the buffer that require grading to connect into the wetland contours. The area to be merged into the buffer is of similar forested character as the existing buffer. The portions that will be graded and be replanted as buffer will have a temporary reduction in some buffer functions in the period (10+ years) it takes the installed tree species to attain a height of approximately 20' or more. Some of the functions that will increase will be the fact that the wetland and buffer area will be fenced preventing the current type of human intrusion in this area from occurring. The trash and debris within this area will be removed and non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry will be removed and replaced with native species with high values for habitat, thus increasing the species richness within the plant community. Numerous pieces of large wood will be placed within the wetland and buffer to increase buffer complexity and provide some habitat features currently not existing within this area. Page 3 paragraph 2: Future submittals shall include full scale maps with scale bars and legible notes. See attached Final Mitigation Plan Page 4 paragraph 3: redundant to Page 3 paragraph I answered on page 1 of this report. Page 4 paragraph 5: redundant question asking for rating form of new mitigation area. See attached rating form. Page 5 paragraph 2: The city will request review of the hydrology monitoring data and analysis. A series of 6 monitoring pits/wells were located within the proposed wetland mitigation area (see attached wetland hydrology monitor point map). These were monitored with weekly site visits from April of2012-August 2012. At each of these points soil saturation and water table levels were measured to determine what surficial groundwater elevations are, to facilitate designing grades for the new wetland creation area. What we found was that within the proposed creation area, groundwater levels in the early growing Fieldbrook Commons/I/-/ 21 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 3 of 15 season area between 14" -30" below the existing surface (see table below). It is assumed in the very early growing season February and March) the groundwater elevations are shallower than the measurements we took, meaning the groundwater elevations are closer to the soil surface. As shown on the attached Final Mitigation Plan, we utilized these existing groundwater contours to create the new grades for our mitigation site. As can be seen by the grades and associated cross-sections, the grades will remove soil down to the existing groundwater elevations to create wetland areas with soils saturated to the surface for the early growing seasons, to also include flat areas that will hold some shallow l "-3" of surface water to provide a variety of wetland hydrologic regimes from saturated, to seasonally flooded. Table 1. Groundwater elevations below surface o 'hvdro/o, "monitorinf! ooints 2012 Monitor DATE point& elev, 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/24 617 6/28 7/12 A417.5' -15 -14 -15 -20 -26 drv dry 8418' -17 -16 -16 -22 -27 dry dry C417' -20 -18 -17 -20 -25 drv dry 0416.5' -14 -14 -14 -16 -20 drv dry E418.5' -27 -26 -24 -30 -36 dry drv F418' -21 -22 -20 -28 -36 dry dry Note: All elevations indicate the elevation of the saturated capillary fringe of soil saturation observed in hydrology monitoring points. 8/12 dry dry dry dry drv dry Page 6 paragraph 1: We recommend a design realignment of the trail to the outer 25% of the buffer to comply with Code. The City has requested that a trail be run along the mitigation and wetland areas to create additional public benefit. It is not possible to have a trail of any public value in the outer 25% of the buffer as it would essentially be a trail paralleling the development and within 12 feet of the development. In order to create a trail that will allow the public to walk through and view the critical areas on the site, we will need to go closer to the critical areas than the 25% Code allowance. As a compromise, the trail has been placed approximately halfway between all of the wetland areas, essentially splitting the buffer areas. This would allow a trail to pass around and along the majority of the wetland areas. To compensate for the area of the trail in the buffer, additional area has been added to the buffer as compensation. Page 6 paragraph 3: Refers to the proposed stormwater outfall and its potential impacts to Wetland B. Fieldbrook Commons!/ 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September I 7, 2012 Page 4 of 15 The current stormwater outfall is release to a level spreader near the edge of wetland B. This outfall will release water from the same basin matching closely with existing drainage patterns on the undeveloped site. Wetland B already has a highly fluctuating water table as a result of historic modifications off-site. As a result, fluctuations of surface water (when present) up to 6" are seen in this wetland during storm events in short periods of time. As a result, the plant community in Wetland B generally consists of species tolerant of a highly fluctuating water table such as willows, hardhack and reed canary grass. No change in hydrology or the character of Wetland B is anticipated. Page 7 paragraph I: If ten years of monitoring are required (by WADOE&Corps) an addendum to the mitigation plan will be prepared to address this change. The Final Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the Corps and W ADOE using the City required 5 years of monitoring. If the Corps requires additional monitoring years, this will be changed to reflect this requirement. The revised Monitoring Plan notes are attached at the end of this report. Page 8 paragraph I: redundant requirement to address buffer functions answered on Pages 1 and 2 of this report. Page 10 paragraph 2: Performance standards for cover will be addressed in review of the final mitigation plan. See Final Mitigation Plan attached. If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consu/Jing, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan 1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT OVERVIEW Fieldbrook Commons// 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 5 of 15 To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to create 25,508sf of wetland between Wetlands A and C. 2.0 MITiGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,508sf of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2.1 Create 25,508sf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3.1 Pre-construction meeting 3.2 Construction staking 3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3.4 Clearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3.7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3.10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved Fie/db rook Commons/ I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September I 7, 2012 Page 6 of 15 understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3.7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the City's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 7of15 Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner. 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the City biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3,9 Monitoring The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project If additional years of monitoring are required by the Corps or W ADOE, the plan will be revised to reflect this change. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. The City's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation & Grading 4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4.1.2The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all non-native invasive plant species including the removal of root crowns. These species may include, but are not limited to Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, English ivy, and English holly. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. Fieldbrook Commons!/ 1-12 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September I 7, 2012 Page 8 of 15 4.1.4The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to final grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials 4.2.lAll plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.l "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 4.2.3No balled and burlapped, or bare root plantings will be used. Container stock only. 4.2.4All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.5Substitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2.7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 9 of 15 4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. 4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3.3All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. Planting pits shall not be deeper than the root ball. lf native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3.5All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.lA fall-winter installation schedule (October Jst -March 15th) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. lf plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1st) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. Fieldbrook Commons/IJ. J 21 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page lO of 15 4.4.2All disturbed areas will be protected with an arborists mulch to a minimum depth of six inches. 4.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain heal thy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 4.5 Site Conditions 4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 4.5.2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 4.5.3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 4.5.4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 4.5.SFinal grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area. 4.5.6All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area. 5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope Fieldbrook Commons///-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page// of 15 5.1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5.l.2Work to be included in each site visit a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.l.3Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and removing the root crowns. As a last resort, treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed) by a licensed applicator can be utilized. b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 Watering Requirements Fieldbrook Commonsll /-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 20 I 2 Page 12 of !5 5.3.lWaterwing with a temporary irrigation system will be required during the first spring and summer after the installation. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on-site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the City Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, starting with the first year after the plants have been installed,and as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off. 6.1.1 Hydrology Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four (4) combination staff/ crest gauges as well as four hydrology monitoring holes dug each sampling period near the piezometer. These will be located within the restoration area to be placed at the time of the installation sign-off by the biologist. Surface water level or ground water saturation depths will be measured at these stations to determine if wetland hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually within 12" of the surface) during the growing season. The growing season for this area is generally defined as the period between the middle of March and the middle of November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year Fie/dbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 13 of 15 and sound professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing season is taking place at the site. Hydrology will be monitored twice a month from March 1st through May 30th of each year. Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology is observed inundating or saturating the soil within 12 inches of the surface during the growing season 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material in late summer or early fall (August-September) to determine the health and vigor of the installation, as well as coverage estimates. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whether they area alive or dead based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be used to determine success of the vegetation component Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant community for a total of 6 transects. Within the emergent plant community coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates of coverage percentages will be made within these plots. A total of 10 sample points within the herbaceous/ emergent plant community will be randomly located during the installation sign off. At each of these points four samples, one in each quadrant will be taken. Within the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody species will be recorded. Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be located during the installation sign off as well as at each permanent monitoring plot. Photographs will be taken at each of the monitoring and included with the monitoring report for each year from these points. During years I & 2 of the monitoring, replacement plants as well as dead plants will be flagged with distinctive flagging to distinguish what plants these are. 6.2 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September I 7, 2012 Page 14 of 15 l.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 100% survival for all installed planted woody vegetation at the end of year 1. 1.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2. l.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cover of woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50% cover of emergent species. l .d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation area at any time. 2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,508sf of wetland meeting at least the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The new wetland area will be delineated in Year 5 to establish and insure adequate wetland has been created. 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation for percent coverage measurements. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the City approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency/ maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: -Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page I5 of 15 -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigating the mitigation area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. -Reseeding wetland and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/ sedimentation occurs. -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary.